Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 5 Mar 2022 10:51:43 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] drm/nouveau/bios: Rename prom_init() and friends functions | From | Christophe Leroy <> |
| |
Le 05/03/2022 à 08:38, Christophe Leroy a écrit : > > > Le 04/03/2022 à 21:24, Lyude Paul a écrit : >> This mostly looks good to me. Just one question (and one comment down >> below >> that needs addressing). Is this with ppc32? (I ask because ppc64le >> doesn't >> seem to hit this compilation error). > > That's with PPC64, see > http://kisskb.ellerman.id.au/kisskb/branch/chleroy/head/252ba609bea83234d2e35841c19ae84c67b43ec7/ > > > But that's not (yet) with the mainline tree. That's work I'm doing to > cleanup our asm/asm-protoypes.h header. > > Since commit 4efca4ed05cb ("kbuild: modversions for EXPORT_SYMBOL() for > asm") that file is dedicated to prototypes of functions defined in > assembly. Therefore I'm trying to dispatch C functions prototypes in > other headers. I wanted to move prom_init() prototype into asm/prom.h > and then I hit the problem. > > In the beginning I was thinking about just changing the name of the > function in powerpc, but as I see that M68K, MIPS and SPARC also have a > prom_init() function, I thought it would be better to change the name in > shadowrom.c to avoid any future conflict like the one I got while > reworking the headers. > > >>> @@ -57,8 +57,8 @@ prom_init(struct nvkm_bios *bios, const char *name) >>> const struct nvbios_source >>> nvbios_rom = { >>> .name = "PROM", >>> - .init = prom_init, >>> - .fini = prom_fini, >>> - .read = prom_read, >>> + .init = nvbios_rom_init, >>> + .fini = nvbios_rom_fini, >>> + .read = nvbios_rom_read, >> >> Seeing as the source name is prom, I think using the naming convention >> nvbios_prom_* would be better then nvbios_rom_*. >> > > Yes I wasn't sure about the best naming as the file name is shadowrom.c > and not shadowprom.c. > > I will send v2 using nvbios_prom_* as a name.
While preparing v2 I remembered that in fact, I called the functions nvbios_rom_* because the name of the nvbios_source struct is nvbios_rom, so for me it made sense to use the name of the struct as a prefix for the functions.
So I'm OK to change it to nvbios_prom_* but it looks less logical to me.
Please confirm you still prefer nvbios_prom as prefix to the function names.
Christophe
| |