Re: [PATCH] drm/nouveau/bios: Rename prom_init() and friends functions

[Lyude Paul <lyude@redhat.com>]

Whoops, sorry! I was unsure of the preference in name we should go with so I
poked Ben on the side to ask them, but I can see they haven't yet responded.
I'll poke thme again and see if I can get a response.

On Fri, 2022-03-18 at 10:55 +0100, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> 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
> 

-- 
Cheers,
 Lyude Paul (she/her)
 Software Engineer at Red Hat