Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 18 Mar 2022 10:55:20 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] drm/nouveau/bios: Rename prom_init() and friends functions | From | Christophe Leroy <> |
| |
Hi Paul,
Le 05/03/2022 à 10:51, Christophe Leroy a écrit : > > > 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. >
Are you still expecting a v2 for this patch ?
As the name of the structure is nvbios_rom, do you really prefer the functions to be called nvbios_prom_* as you mentionned in your comment ?
In that case, do you also expect the structure name to be changed to nvbios_prom ?
Thanks Christophe
| |