LinuxLists.cc - RFC: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_*() to dt

2010-11-24 14:04:28

Subject: RFC: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_() to dt_()

Attachments:

signature.asc (198.00 B)
This is a digitally signed message part

2010-11-24 15:45:29

by Timur Tabi

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: RFC: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_() to dt_()

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 8:03 AM, Michael Ellerman
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Personally I'm a bit ambivalent about it, the OF name is a bit wrong so
> it would be nice to get rid of, but it's a lot of churn.
>
> So I'm hoping people with either say "YES this is a great idea", or "NO
> this is stupid".

Well, my vote is "no". I wouldn't call it stupid, but I do think it's
a bad idea.

In general, I don't like renaming functions, because it causes
complications with merges and porting code across kernel versions. It
also forces me to re-remember things.

And especially in this case, the churn is too great. You're affecting
files across multiple subsystems and architectures.

--
Timur Tabi
Linux kernel developer at Freescale

2010-11-24 17:00:54

by David Daney

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: RFC: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_() to dt_()

On 11/24/2010 06:03 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> There were some murmurings on IRC last week about renaming the of_*()
> routines. I was procrastinating at the time and said I'd have a look at
> it, so here I am.
>
> The thinking is that on many platforms that use the of_() routines
> OpenFirmware is not involved at all, this is true even on many powerpc
> platforms. Also for folks who don't know the OpenFirmware connection it
> reads as "of", as in "a can of worms".
>
> Personally I'm a bit ambivalent about it, the OF name is a bit wrong so
> it would be nice to get rid of, but it's a lot of churn.
>
> So I'm hoping people with either say "YES this is a great idea", or "NO
> this is stupid".
>
> As step one I've just renamed as many routines as I could find to see
> what the resulting patch looks like, so we can quantify the churn. I
> also did device.of_node, which is used quite a bit.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> of -> dt most places I could think of (done mechanically):
>
[...]
> drivers/of/address.c | 114 ++++++------
> drivers/of/base.c | 14 +-
> drivers/of/device.c | 36 ++--
> drivers/of/fdt.c | 4 +-
> drivers/of/gpio.c | 32 ++--
> drivers/of/irq.c | 4 +-
> drivers/of/of_i2c.c | 18 +-
> drivers/of/of_mdio.c | 16 +-
> drivers/of/of_spi.c | 12 +-
> drivers/of/pdt.c | 4 +-
> drivers/of/platform.c | 212 ++++++++++----------

Well, not that I care one way or the other, but for consistency you
should change all these directory and file names as well.

David Daney

2010-11-24 17:03:31

by Stephen Neuendorffer

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: RE: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_() to dt_()

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:linuxppc-dev-
> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael Ellerman
> Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 6:04 AM
> To: LKML
> Cc: linux-mips; [email protected]; [email protected]; linuxppc-dev
> list; [email protected]
> Subject: RFC: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_*() to dt_*()
>
> Hi all,
>
> There were some murmurings on IRC last week about renaming the of_*()
> routines. I was procrastinating at the time and said I'd have a look at
> it, so here I am.
>
> The thinking is that on many platforms that use the of_() routines
> OpenFirmware is not involved at all, this is true even on many powerpc
> platforms. Also for folks who don't know the OpenFirmware connection it
> reads as "of", as in "a can of worms".
>
> Personally I'm a bit ambivalent about it, the OF name is a bit wrong so
> it would be nice to get rid of, but it's a lot of churn.
>
> So I'm hoping people with either say "YES this is a great idea", or "NO
> this is stupid".

Personally, I think it's a great idea, if only because I stared long and hard
at the code once upon a time trying to figure out what is really OF-related
and what isn't. It's somewhat clearer now that drivers/of has been factored
out (although, shouldn't it be drivers/dt???)

That said, it *is* alot of code churn. If it's going to be done, I think it should be
done in concert with fixing a bunch of the function names which don't really follow any
sane naming convention, so that the backporting discontinuity only happens once.

Steve

This email and any attachments are intended for the sole use of the named recipient(s) and contain(s) confidential information that may be proprietary, privileged or copyrighted under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, copy, or forward this email message or any attachments. Delete this email message and any attachments immediately.
????{.n?+???????+%?????ݶ??w??{.n?+????{??G?????{ay?ʇڙ?,j??f???h?????????z_??(?階?ݢj"???m??????G????????????&???~???iO???z??v?^?m????????????I?

2010-11-24 17:18:08

by David Daney

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_() to dt_()

On 11/24/2010 09:02 AM, Stephen Neuendorffer wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [email protected] [mailto:linuxppc-dev-
>> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael Ellerman
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 6:04 AM
>> To: LKML
>> Cc: linux-mips; [email protected]; [email protected]; linuxppc-dev
>> list; [email protected]
>> Subject: RFC: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_*() to dt_*()
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> There were some murmurings on IRC last week about renaming the of_*()
>> routines. I was procrastinating at the time and said I'd have a look at
>> it, so here I am.
>>
>> The thinking is that on many platforms that use the of_() routines
>> OpenFirmware is not involved at all, this is true even on many powerpc
>> platforms. Also for folks who don't know the OpenFirmware connection it
>> reads as "of", as in "a can of worms".
>>
>> Personally I'm a bit ambivalent about it, the OF name is a bit wrong so
>> it would be nice to get rid of, but it's a lot of churn.
>>
>> So I'm hoping people with either say "YES this is a great idea", or "NO
>> this is stupid".
>
> Personally, I think it's a great idea, if only because I stared long and hard
> at the code once upon a time trying to figure out what is really OF-related
> and what isn't. It's somewhat clearer now that drivers/of has been factored
> out (although, shouldn't it be drivers/dt???)
>
> That said, it *is* alot of code churn. If it's going to be done, I think it should be
> done in concert with fixing a bunch of the function names which don't really follow any
> sane naming convention, so that the backporting discontinuity only happens once.
>

Oh, you mean things like:

of_{,un}register_platform_driver vs. platform_driver_{,un}register

That one is particularly annoying to me.

David Daney

2010-11-24 18:03:08

by Grant Likely

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_() to dt_()

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 10:18 AM, David Daney <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 11/24/2010 09:02 AM, Stephen Neuendorffer wrote:
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: [email protected]
>>> [mailto:linuxppc-dev-
>>> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael
>>> Ellerman
>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 6:04 AM
>>> To: LKML
>>> Cc: linux-mips; [email protected];
>>> [email protected]; linuxppc-dev
>>> list; [email protected]
>>> Subject: RFC: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_*() to dt_*()
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> There were some murmurings on IRC last week about renaming the of_*()
>>> routines. I was procrastinating at the time and said I'd have a look at
>>> it, so here I am.
>>>
>>> The thinking is that on many platforms that use the of_() routines
>>> OpenFirmware is not involved at all, this is true even on many powerpc
>>> platforms. Also for folks who don't know the OpenFirmware connection it
>>> reads as "of", as in "a can of worms".
>>>
>>> Personally I'm a bit ambivalent about it, the OF name is a bit wrong so
>>> it would be nice to get rid of, but it's a lot of churn.
>>>
>>> So I'm hoping people with either say "YES this is a great idea", or "NO
>>> this is stupid".
>>
>> Personally, I think it's a great idea, if only because I stared long and
>> hard
>> at the code once upon a time trying to figure out what is really
>> OF-related
>> and what isn't. ?It's somewhat clearer now that drivers/of has been
>> factored
>> out (although, shouldn't it be drivers/dt???)

Yes, the directory name should change, as should the CONFIG_OF* defines.

>>
>> That said, it *is* alot of code churn. ?If it's going to be done, I think
>> it should be
>> done in concert with fixing a bunch of the function names which don't
>> really follow any
>> sane naming convention, so that the backporting discontinuity only happens
>> once.
>>
>
> Oh, you mean things like:
>
> of_{,un}register_platform_driver vs. platform_driver_{,un}register
>
> That one is particularly annoying to me.

Ignore that one. of_{,un}platform_driver is deprecated and users will
all be converted to platform_drivers.

g.

2010-11-24 18:18:49

by David VomLehn

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: RFC: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_() to dt_()

On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 01:03:33AM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> There were some murmurings on IRC last week about renaming the of_*()
> routines. I was procrastinating at the time and said I'd have a look at
> it, so here I am.
>
> The thinking is that on many platforms that use the of_() routines
> OpenFirmware is not involved at all, this is true even on many powerpc
> platforms. Also for folks who don't know the OpenFirmware connection it
> reads as "of", as in "a can of worms".
>
> Personally I'm a bit ambivalent about it, the OF name is a bit wrong so
> it would be nice to get rid of, but it's a lot of churn.
>
> So I'm hoping people with either say "YES this is a great idea", or "NO
> this is stupid".
>
> As step one I've just renamed as many routines as I could find to see
> what the resulting patch looks like, so we can quantify the churn. I
> also did device.of_node, which is used quite a bit.
>
> Thoughts?

I'm looking at it the other way. There are inconsistencies in naming of
symbols and files we definitely should clean up. Since we're doing that,
let's take the opportunity to move from of* to dt*. With multiple
architectures adding device tree support, this is about the last chance
to do this without impacting too many people.
--
David VL

2010-11-24 18:48:33

by Stephen Neuendorffer

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: RE: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_() to dt_()

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Daney [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 9:18 AM
> To: Stephen Neuendorffer
> Cc: [email protected]; LKML; linux-mips; [email protected]; devicetree-
> [email protected]; linuxppc-dev list; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_*() to dt_*()
>
> On 11/24/2010 09:02 AM, Stephen Neuendorffer wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: [email protected] [mailto:linuxppc-dev-
> >> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael Ellerman
> >> Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 6:04 AM
> >> To: LKML
> >> Cc: linux-mips; [email protected]; [email protected]; linuxppc-
> dev
> >> list; [email protected]
> >> Subject: RFC: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_*() to dt_*()
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> There were some murmurings on IRC last week about renaming the of_*()
> >> routines. I was procrastinating at the time and said I'd have a look at
> >> it, so here I am.
> >>
> >> The thinking is that on many platforms that use the of_() routines
> >> OpenFirmware is not involved at all, this is true even on many powerpc
> >> platforms. Also for folks who don't know the OpenFirmware connection it
> >> reads as "of", as in "a can of worms".
> >>
> >> Personally I'm a bit ambivalent about it, the OF name is a bit wrong so
> >> it would be nice to get rid of, but it's a lot of churn.
> >>
> >> So I'm hoping people with either say "YES this is a great idea", or "NO
> >> this is stupid".
> >
> > Personally, I think it's a great idea, if only because I stared long and hard
> > at the code once upon a time trying to figure out what is really OF-related
> > and what isn't. It's somewhat clearer now that drivers/of has been factored
> > out (although, shouldn't it be drivers/dt???)
> >
> > That said, it *is* alot of code churn. If it's going to be done, I think it should be
> > done in concert with fixing a bunch of the function names which don't really follow any
> > sane naming convention, so that the backporting discontinuity only happens once.
> >
>
> Oh, you mean things like:
>
> of_{,un}register_platform_driver vs. platform_driver_{,un}register
>
> That one is particularly annoying to me.
>
> David Daney

Actually, I was particularly thinking of drivers/of/fdt.c, which I was recently hacking around with,
but I'm sure there are others... :)

Steve

This email and any attachments are intended for the sole use of the named recipient(s) and contain(s) confidential information that may be proprietary, privileged or copyrighted under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, copy, or forward this email message or any attachments. Delete this email message and any attachments immediately.
????{.n?+???????+%?????ݶ??w??{.n?+????{??G?????{ay?ʇڙ?,j??f???h?????????z_??(?階?ݢj"???m??????G????????????&???~???iO???z??v?^?m????????????I?

2010-11-25 13:34:40

by Michael Ellerman

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: RFC: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_() to dt_()

On Thu, 2010-11-25 at 01:03 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> There were some murmurings on IRC last week about renaming the of_*()
> routines.
...
> The thinking is that on many platforms that use the of_() routines
> OpenFirmware is not involved at all, this is true even on many powerpc
> platforms. Also for folks who don't know the OpenFirmware connection
> it reads as "of", as in "a can of worms".
...
> So I'm hoping people with either say "YES this is a great idea", or "NO
> this is stupid".

I'm still hoping, but so far it seems most people have got better things
to do, and of those that do have an opinion the balance is slightly
positive.

So here's a first cut of a patch to add the new names. I've not touched
of_platform because that is supposed to go away. That will lead to some
odd looking code in the interim, but I think is the right approach.

Most of these are straight renames, but some have changed more
substantially. The routines for the flat tree have all become fdt_foo().
I'd be inclined to drop "early_init" from them too, because they're
basically all about early init, but Grant said he'd prefer not to I
think. I've also renamed the flat tree tag constants to match libfdt.

I've left for_each_child_of_node(), because I read it as "of", but maybe
it's "OF"?

cheers

#ifndef __DT_H
#define __DT_H

/* include/linux/device.h */
#define dt_match_table of_match_table
#define dt_node of_node

/* include/linux/mod_devicetable.h */
#define dt_device_id of_device_id

/* include/linux/of.h */
#define dt_node_to_nid of_node_to_nid
#define dt_chosen of_chosen
#define dt_node_is_root of_node_is_root
#define dt_node_check_flag of_node_check_flag
#define dt_node_set_flag of_node_set_flag
#define dt_find_all_nodes of_find_all_nodes
#define dt_node_get of_node_get
#define dt_node_put of_node_put
#define dt_read_number of_read_number
#define dt_read_ulong of_read_ulong
#define dt_find_node_by_name of_find_node_by_name
#define dt_find_node_by_type of_find_node_by_type
#define dt_find_compatible_node of_find_compatible_node
#define dt_find_matching_node of_find_matching_node
#define dt_find_node_by_path of_find_node_by_path
#define dt_find_node_by_phandle of_find_node_by_phandle
#define dt_get_parent of_get_parent
#define dt_get_next_parent of_get_next_parent
#define dt_get_next_child of_get_next_child
#define dt_find_node_with_property of_find_node_with_property
#define dt_device_is_compatible of_device_is_compatible
#define dt_device_is_available of_device_is_available
#define dt_get_property of_get_property
#define dt_n_addr_cells of_n_addr_cells
#define dt_n_size_cells of_n_size_cells
#define dt_match_node of_match_node
#define dt_modalias_node of_modalias_node
#define dt_parse_phandle of_parse_phandle
#define dt_parse_phandles_with_args of_parse_phandles_with_args
#define dt_machine_is_compatible of_machine_is_compatible
#define dt_attach_node of_attach_node
#define dt_detach_node of_detach_node
#define dt_find_property of_find_property

/* include/linux/of_fdt.h */
#define fdt_find_string find_flat_dt_string
#define fdt_scan of_scan_flat_dt
#define fdt_get_prop of_get_flat_dt_prop
#define fdt_is_compatible of_flat_dt_is_compatible
#define fdt_get_root of_get_flat_dt_root
#define fdt_early_init_scan_chosen early_init_dt_scan_chosen
#define fdt_early_init_check_for_initrd early_init_dt_check_for_initrd
#define fdt_early_init_scan_memory early_init_dt_scan_memory
#define fdt_early_init_add_memory_arch early_init_dt_add_memory_arch
#define fdt_early_init_alloc_memory_arch early_init_dt_alloc_memory_arch
#define fdt_early_init_setup_initrd_arch early_init_dt_setup_initrd_arch
#define fdt_early_init_scan_root early_init_dt_scan_root
#define fdt_unflatten unflatten_device_tree
#define fdt_early_init early_init_devtree
#define FDT_MAGIC OF_DT_HEADER
#define FDT_BEGIN_NODE OF_DT_BEGIN_NODE
#define FDT_END_NODE OF_DT_END_NODE
#define FDT_PROP OF_DT_PROP
#define FDT_NOP OF_DT_NOP
#define FDT_END OF_DT_END
#define FDT_VERSION OF_DT_VERSION

/* include/linux/of_address.h */
#define dt_translate_address of_translate_address
#define dt_address_to_resource of_address_to_resource
#define dt_iomap of_iomap
#define dt_get_address of_get_address
#define dt_get_pci_address of_get_pci_address
#define dt_pci_address_to_resource of_pci_address_to_resource

/* include/linux/of_device.h */
#define dt_match_device of_match_device
#define dt_device_make_bus_id of_device_make_bus_id
#define dt_driver_match_device of_driver_match_device
#define dt_dev_get of_dev_get
#define dt_dev_put of_dev_put
#define dt_device_add of_device_add
#define dt_device_register of_device_register
#define dt_device_unregister of_device_unregister
#define dt_device_get_modalias of_device_get_modalias
#define dt_device_uevent of_device_uevent
#define dt_device_node_put of_device_node_put

/* include/linux/of_irq.h */
#define dt_irq of_irq
#define dt_irq_parse_and_map irq_of_parse_and_map
#define dt_irq_workarounds of_irq_workarounds
#define dt_irq_dflt_pic of_irq_dflt_pic
#define dt_irq_map_oldworld of_irq_map_oldworld
#define dt_irq_map_raw of_irq_map_raw
#define dt_irq_map_one of_irq_map_one
#define dt_irq_create_mapping irq_create_of_mapping
#define dt_irq_to_resource of_irq_to_resource
#define dt_irq_count of_irq_count
#define dt_irq_to_resource_table of_irq_to_resource_table
#define DT_IRQ_MAX_SPEC OF_MAX_IRQ_SPEC
#define DT_IRQ_QUIRK_OLDWORLD_MAC OF_IMAP_OLDWORLD_MAC
#define DT_IRQ_QUIRK_NO_PHANDLE OF_IMAP_NO_PHANDLE

/* include/linux/of_mdio.h */
#define dt_mdiobus_register of_mdiobus_register
#define dt_phy_find_device of_phy_find_device
#define dt_phy_connect of_phy_connect
#define dt_phy_connect_fixed_link of_phy_connect_fixed_link

/* include/linux/of_spi.h */
#define dt_register_spi_devices of_register_spi_devices

/* include/linux/of_gpio.h */
#define dt_gpio_flags of_gpio_flags
#define DT_GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW OF_GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW
#define dt_mm_gpio_chip of_mm_gpio_chip
#define to_dt_mm_gpio_chip to_of_mm_gpio_chip
#define dt_get_gpio_flags of_get_gpio_flags
#define dt_gpio_count of_gpio_count
#define dt_mm_gpiochip_add of_mm_gpiochip_add
#define dt_gpiochip_add of_gpiochip_add
#define dt_gpiochip_remove of_gpiochip_remove
#define dt_node_to_gpiochip of_node_to_gpiochip
#define dt_get_gpio of_get_gpio

/* include/linux/dt_i2c.h */
#define dt_i2c_register_devices of_i2c_register_devices
#define dt_find_i2c_device_by_node of_find_i2c_device_by_node

#endif /* __DT_H */

Attachments:

signature.asc (198.00 B)
This is a digitally signed message part

2010-11-25 14:01:30

by Geert Uytterhoeven

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: RFC: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_() to dt_()

On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 14:34, Michael Ellerman <[email protected]> wrote:
> I've left for_each_child_of_node(), because I read it as "of", but maybe
> it's "OF"?

I always read it as "for each child-OF-node", so I would rename it to
"dt_for_each_child_node".

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [email protected]

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds

2010-11-25 16:18:27

by Grant Likely

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: RFC: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_() to dt_()

On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 6:34 AM, Michael Ellerman
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-11-25 at 01:03 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> There were some murmurings on IRC last week about renaming the of_*()
>> routines.
> ...
>> The thinking is that on many platforms that use the of_() routines
>> OpenFirmware is not involved at all, this is true even on many powerpc
>> platforms. Also for folks who don't know the OpenFirmware connection
>> it reads as "of", as in "a can of worms".
> ...
>> So I'm hoping people with either say "YES this is a great idea", or "NO
>> this is stupid".
>
> I'm still hoping, but so far it seems most people have got better things
> to do, and of those that do have an opinion the balance is slightly
> positive.

I assume you'll be also publishing the script that you use for
generating the massive patch. I expect that there will be a few
iterations of running the rename script to convert over all the
stragglers. It should also be negotiated with Linus about when this
patch should get applied. I do NOT want to cause massive merge pain
during the merge window.

Andrew/Linus: Before Michael proceeds too far with this rename, are
you okay with a mass rename of the device tree functions from of_* to
dt_*? Nobody likes the ambiguous 'of_' prefix ("of? of what?"), but
to fix it means large cross-tree patches and potential merge
conflicts.

> So here's a first cut of a patch to add the new names. I've not touched
> of_platform because that is supposed to go away. That will lead to some
> odd looking code in the interim, but I think is the right approach.

I would split it up into separate dt*.h files, one for each of*.h file
so that the #include lines can be changed in the C code at the same
time. Each dt*.h file would include it's of*.h counterpart. Then
after the code is renamed, and a release or two has passed to catch
the majority of users, the old definitions can be moved into the dt*.h
files.

However, it may be better to move and rename the definitions
immediately, and leave "#define of_* dt_*" macros in the old of*.h
files which can be removed with a simple patch after all the users are
converted. That would have a smaller impact in the cleanup stage.

> Most of these are straight renames, but some have changed more
> substantially. The routines for the flat tree have all become fdt_foo().
> I'd be inclined to drop "early_init" from them too, because they're
> basically all about early init, but Grant said he'd prefer not to I
> think. I've also renamed the flat tree tag constants to match libfdt.

It is all about early init now in Linus' tree, but Stephen
Neuendorffer has patches that use the fdt code at driver probe time
for parsing device tree fragments that describe an FPGA add-in board.

>
> I've left for_each_child_of_node(), because I read it as "of", but maybe
> it's "OF"?

hahaha! I never considered that it might be OF, but now I probably
won't be able to help but read it that way! I like Geert's suggestion
of dt_for_each_child_node

g.

>
> cheers
>
> #ifndef __DT_H
> #define __DT_H
>
> /* include/linux/device.h */
> #define dt_match_table ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?of_match_table
> #define dt_node ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? of_node

This could be very messy. I've nervous about using #define to rename
structure members. You'll need to check that any structure members
that use the same name as a global symbol are handled appropriately.

>
> /* include/linux/mod_devicetable.h */
> #define dt_device_id ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?of_device_id
>
> /* include/linux/of.h */
> #define dt_node_to_nid ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?of_node_to_nid
> #define dt_chosen ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? of_chosen
> #define dt_node_is_root ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? of_node_is_root
> #define dt_node_check_flag ? ? ? ? ? ? ?of_node_check_flag
> #define dt_node_set_flag ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?of_node_set_flag
> #define dt_find_all_nodes ? ? ? ? ? ? ? of_find_all_nodes
> #define dt_node_get ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? of_node_get
> #define dt_node_put ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? of_node_put
> #define dt_read_number ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?of_read_number
> #define dt_read_ulong ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? of_read_ulong
> #define dt_find_node_by_name ? ? ? ? ? ?of_find_node_by_name
> #define dt_find_node_by_type ? ? ? ? ? ?of_find_node_by_type
> #define dt_find_compatible_node ? ? ? ? of_find_compatible_node
> #define dt_find_matching_node ? ? ? ? ? of_find_matching_node
> #define dt_find_node_by_path ? ? ? ? ? ?of_find_node_by_path
> #define dt_find_node_by_phandle ? ? ? ? of_find_node_by_phandle
> #define dt_get_parent ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? of_get_parent
> #define dt_get_next_parent ? ? ? ? ? ? ?of_get_next_parent
> #define dt_get_next_child ? ? ? ? ? ? ? of_get_next_child
> #define dt_find_node_with_property ? ? ?of_find_node_with_property
> #define dt_device_is_compatible ? ? ? ? of_device_is_compatible
> #define dt_device_is_available ? ? ? ? ?of_device_is_available
> #define dt_get_property ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? of_get_property
> #define dt_n_addr_cells ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? of_n_addr_cells
> #define dt_n_size_cells ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? of_n_size_cells
> #define dt_match_node ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? of_match_node
> #define dt_modalias_node ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?of_modalias_node
> #define dt_parse_phandle ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?of_parse_phandle
> #define dt_parse_phandles_with_args ? ? of_parse_phandles_with_args
> #define dt_machine_is_compatible ? ? ? ?of_machine_is_compatible
> #define dt_attach_node ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?of_attach_node
> #define dt_detach_node ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?of_detach_node
> #define dt_find_property ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?of_find_property
>
> /* include/linux/of_fdt.h */
> #define fdt_find_string ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? find_flat_dt_string
> #define fdt_scan ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?of_scan_flat_dt
> #define fdt_get_prop ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?of_get_flat_dt_prop
> #define fdt_is_compatible ? ? ? ? ? ? ? of_flat_dt_is_compatible
> #define fdt_get_root ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?of_get_flat_dt_root
> #define fdt_early_init_scan_chosen ? ? ?early_init_dt_scan_chosen
> #define fdt_early_init_check_for_initrd early_init_dt_check_for_initrd
> #define fdt_early_init_scan_memory ? ? ?early_init_dt_scan_memory
> #define fdt_early_init_add_memory_arch ?early_init_dt_add_memory_arch
> #define fdt_early_init_alloc_memory_arch early_init_dt_alloc_memory_arch
> #define fdt_early_init_setup_initrd_arch early_init_dt_setup_initrd_arch
> #define fdt_early_init_scan_root ? ? ? ?early_init_dt_scan_root
> #define fdt_unflatten ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? unflatten_device_tree
> #define fdt_early_init ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?early_init_devtree
> #define FDT_MAGIC ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? OF_DT_HEADER
> #define FDT_BEGIN_NODE ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?OF_DT_BEGIN_NODE
> #define FDT_END_NODE ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?OF_DT_END_NODE
> #define FDT_PROP ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?OF_DT_PROP
> #define FDT_NOP ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? OF_DT_NOP
> #define FDT_END ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? OF_DT_END
> #define FDT_VERSION ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? OF_DT_VERSION
>
> /* include/linux/of_address.h */
> #define dt_translate_address ? ? ? ? ? ?of_translate_address
> #define dt_address_to_resource ? ? ? ? ?of_address_to_resource
> #define dt_iomap ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?of_iomap
> #define dt_get_address ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?of_get_address
> #define dt_get_pci_address ? ? ? ? ? ? ?of_get_pci_address
> #define dt_pci_address_to_resource ? ? ?of_pci_address_to_resource
>
> /* include/linux/of_device.h */
> #define dt_match_device ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? of_match_device
> #define dt_device_make_bus_id ? ? ? ? ? of_device_make_bus_id
> #define dt_driver_match_device ? ? ? ? ?of_driver_match_device
> #define dt_dev_get ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?of_dev_get
> #define dt_dev_put ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?of_dev_put
> #define dt_device_add ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? of_device_add
> #define dt_device_register ? ? ? ? ? ? ?of_device_register
> #define dt_device_unregister ? ? ? ? ? ?of_device_unregister
> #define dt_device_get_modalias ? ? ? ? ?of_device_get_modalias
> #define dt_device_uevent ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?of_device_uevent
> #define dt_device_node_put ? ? ? ? ? ? ?of_device_node_put
>
> /* include/linux/of_irq.h */
> #define dt_irq ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?of_irq
> #define dt_irq_parse_and_map ? ? ? ? ? ?irq_of_parse_and_map
> #define dt_irq_workarounds ? ? ? ? ? ? ?of_irq_workarounds
> #define dt_irq_dflt_pic ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? of_irq_dflt_pic
> #define dt_irq_map_oldworld ? ? ? ? ? ? of_irq_map_oldworld
> #define dt_irq_map_raw ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?of_irq_map_raw
> #define dt_irq_map_one ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?of_irq_map_one
> #define dt_irq_create_mapping ? ? ? ? ? irq_create_of_mapping
> #define dt_irq_to_resource ? ? ? ? ? ? ?of_irq_to_resource
> #define dt_irq_count ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?of_irq_count
> #define dt_irq_to_resource_table ? ? ? ?of_irq_to_resource_table
> #define DT_IRQ_MAX_SPEC ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? OF_MAX_IRQ_SPEC
> #define DT_IRQ_QUIRK_OLDWORLD_MAC ? ? ? OF_IMAP_OLDWORLD_MAC
> #define DT_IRQ_QUIRK_NO_PHANDLE ? ? ? ? OF_IMAP_NO_PHANDLE
>
> /* include/linux/of_mdio.h */
> #define dt_mdiobus_register ? ? ? ? ? ? of_mdiobus_register
> #define dt_phy_find_device ? ? ? ? ? ? ?of_phy_find_device
> #define dt_phy_connect ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?of_phy_connect
> #define dt_phy_connect_fixed_link ? ? ? of_phy_connect_fixed_link
>
> /* include/linux/of_spi.h */
> #define dt_register_spi_devices ? ? ? ? of_register_spi_devices
>
> /* include/linux/of_gpio.h */
> #define dt_gpio_flags ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? of_gpio_flags
> #define DT_GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW ? ? ? ? ? ? ?OF_GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW
> #define dt_mm_gpio_chip ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? of_mm_gpio_chip
> #define to_dt_mm_gpio_chip ? ? ? ? ? ? ?to_of_mm_gpio_chip
> #define dt_get_gpio_flags ? ? ? ? ? ? ? of_get_gpio_flags
> #define dt_gpio_count ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? of_gpio_count
> #define dt_mm_gpiochip_add ? ? ? ? ? ? ?of_mm_gpiochip_add
> #define dt_gpiochip_add ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? of_gpiochip_add
> #define dt_gpiochip_remove ? ? ? ? ? ? ?of_gpiochip_remove
> #define dt_node_to_gpiochip ? ? ? ? ? ? of_node_to_gpiochip
> #define dt_get_gpio ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? of_get_gpio
>
> /* include/linux/dt_i2c.h */
> #define dt_i2c_register_devices ? ? ? ? of_i2c_register_devices
> #define dt_find_i2c_device_by_node ? ? ?of_find_i2c_device_by_node
>
> #endif /* __DT_H */
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> devicetree-discuss mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
>
>

--
Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.

2010-11-25 20:52:43

by Benjamin Herrenschmidt

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: RFC: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_() to dt_()

On Thu, 2010-11-25 at 15:01 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>
> I always read it as "for each child-OF-node", so I would rename it to
> "dt_for_each_child_node".

Well, it was meant to be for_child_of_node not _OF_node :-)

Cheers,
Ben.

2010-11-26 03:15:46

by Michael Ellerman

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: RFC: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_() to dt_()

On Thu, 2010-11-25 at 09:17 -0700, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 6:34 AM, Michael Ellerman
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-11-25 at 01:03 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> There were some murmurings on IRC last week about renaming the of_*()
> >> routines.
> > ...
> >> The thinking is that on many platforms that use the of_() routines
> >> OpenFirmware is not involved at all, this is true even on many powerpc
> >> platforms. Also for folks who don't know the OpenFirmware connection
> >> it reads as "of", as in "a can of worms".
> > ...
> >> So I'm hoping people with either say "YES this is a great idea", or "NO
> >> this is stupid".
> >
> > I'm still hoping, but so far it seems most people have got better things
> > to do, and of those that do have an opinion the balance is slightly
> > positive.
>
> I assume you'll be also publishing the script that you use for
> generating the massive patch. I expect that there will be a few
> iterations of running the rename script to convert over all the
> stragglers.

Yep sure, I'll just make it less crap first.

> It should also be negotiated with Linus about when this
> patch should get applied. I do NOT want to cause massive merge pain
> during the merge window.

Obviously.

> Andrew/Linus: Before Michael proceeds too far with this rename, are
> you okay with a mass rename of the device tree functions from of_* to
> dt_*? Nobody likes the ambiguous 'of_' prefix ("of? of what?"), but
> to fix it means large cross-tree patches and potential merge
> conflicts.

It'd also be good to hear from DaveM, sparc is the platform with the
strongest link to real OF AFAIK, so the of_() names make more sense
there.

> > So here's a first cut of a patch to add the new names. I've not touched
> > of_platform because that is supposed to go away. That will lead to some
> > odd looking code in the interim, but I think is the right approach.
>
> I would split it up into separate dt*.h files, one for each of*.h file
> so that the #include lines can be changed in the C code at the same
> time. Each dt*.h file would include it's of*.h counterpart. Then
> after the code is renamed, and a release or two has passed to catch
> the majority of users, the old definitions can be moved into the dt*.h
> files.

Yep that sounds like a plan. I did it as a single header for starters so
I could autogenerate the rename script easily.

> However, it may be better to move and rename the definitions
> immediately, and leave "#define of_* dt_*" macros in the old of*.h
> files which can be removed with a simple patch after all the users are
> converted. That would have a smaller impact in the cleanup stage.

True, though a bigger impact to start with. I did that originally but
decided it might be better to start with the minimal patch to add the
new names. That way Linus might accept it this release, meaning we'd
have the new names in place for code in -next.

> > Most of these are straight renames, but some have changed more
> > substantially. The routines for the flat tree have all become fdt_foo().
> > I'd be inclined to drop "early_init" from them too, because they're
> > basically all about early init, but Grant said he'd prefer not to I
> > think. I've also renamed the flat tree tag constants to match libfdt.
>
> It is all about early init now in Linus' tree, but Stephen
> Neuendorffer has patches that use the fdt code at driver probe time
> for parsing device tree fragments that describe an FPGA add-in board.

OK fair enough.

> > I've left for_each_child_of_node(), because I read it as "of", but maybe
> > it's "OF"?
>
> hahaha! I never considered that it might be OF, but now I probably
> won't be able to help but read it that way! I like Geert's suggestion
> of dt_for_each_child_node

OK, I like it the way it is, but if the consensus is to change it then
we can. There's a bunch actually:

for_each_node_by_name(dn, name) \
for_each_node_by_type(dn, type) \
for_each_compatible_node(dn, type, compatible) \
for_each_matching_node(dn, matches) \
for_each_child_of_node(parent, child) \
for_each_node_with_property(dn, prop_name) \

So either dt_for_each_blah(), or for_each_dt_node_blah() ?

> > /* include/linux/device.h */
> > #define dt_match_table of_match_table
> > #define dt_node of_node
>
> This could be very messy. I've nervous about using #define to rename
> structure members. You'll need to check that any structure members
> that use the same name as a global symbol are handled appropriately.

I'm not sure what you mean about global symbols.

I think it's fairly safe, in that direction, ie. defining the dt_*
names. Neither of those strings appears anywhere in the tree at the
moment (as a token).

cheers

Attachments:

signature.asc (198.00 B)
This is a digitally signed message part

2010-11-26 04:49:34

by Mitch Bradley

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: RFC: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_() to dt_()

On 11/25/2010 5:15 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-11-25 at 09:17 -0700, Grant Likely wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 6:34 AM, Michael Ellerman
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2010-11-25 at 01:03 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> There were some murmurings on IRC last week about renaming the of_*()
>>>> routines.
>>> ...
>>>> The thinking is that on many platforms that use the of_() routines
>>>> OpenFirmware is not involved at all, this is true even on many powerpc
>>>> platforms. Also for folks who don't know the OpenFirmware connection
>>>> it reads as "of", as in "a can of worms".
>>> ...
>>>> So I'm hoping people with either say "YES this is a great idea", or "NO
>>>> this is stupid".
>>>
>>> I'm still hoping, but so far it seems most people have got better things
>>> to do, and of those that do have an opinion the balance is slightly
>>> positive.
>>
>> I assume you'll be also publishing the script that you use for
>> generating the massive patch. I expect that there will be a few
>> iterations of running the rename script to convert over all the
>> stragglers.
>
> Yep sure, I'll just make it less crap first.
>
>> It should also be negotiated with Linus about when this
>> patch should get applied. I do NOT want to cause massive merge pain
>> during the merge window.
>
> Obviously.
>
>> Andrew/Linus: Before Michael proceeds too far with this rename, are
>> you okay with a mass rename of the device tree functions from of_* to
>> dt_*? Nobody likes the ambiguous 'of_' prefix ("of? of what?"), but
>> to fix it means large cross-tree patches and potential merge
>> conflicts.
>
> It'd also be good to hear from DaveM, sparc is the platform with the
> strongest link to real OF AFAIK, so the of_() names make more sense
> there.

One Laptop Per Child ships real Open Firmware on its x86 Linux systems,
of which approximately 2 million have been shipped or ordered. An ARM
version, also with OFW, is in the works. From the standpoint of "number
of units in the field actually running Linux", I expect that compares
favorably with SPARC.

That said, I don't particularly like the abbreviation "of" either; I
abbreviate Open Firmware as "OFW".

I don't mind using "dt_" to apply to device tree things; I think it's
clearer than "of_". Ideally, it would be nice to acknowledge the
historical connection in some way, but confusing nomenclature probably
is not the way to go about it.

>
>>> So here's a first cut of a patch to add the new names. I've not touched
>>> of_platform because that is supposed to go away. That will lead to some
>>> odd looking code in the interim, but I think is the right approach.
>>
>> I would split it up into separate dt*.h files, one for each of*.h file
>> so that the #include lines can be changed in the C code at the same
>> time. Each dt*.h file would include it's of*.h counterpart. Then
>> after the code is renamed, and a release or two has passed to catch
>> the majority of users, the old definitions can be moved into the dt*.h
>> files.
>
> Yep that sounds like a plan. I did it as a single header for starters so
> I could autogenerate the rename script easily.
>
>> However, it may be better to move and rename the definitions
>> immediately, and leave "#define of_* dt_*" macros in the old of*.h
>> files which can be removed with a simple patch after all the users are
>> converted. That would have a smaller impact in the cleanup stage.
>
> True, though a bigger impact to start with. I did that originally but
> decided it might be better to start with the minimal patch to add the
> new names. That way Linus might accept it this release, meaning we'd
> have the new names in place for code in -next.
>
>>> Most of these are straight renames, but some have changed more
>>> substantially. The routines for the flat tree have all become fdt_foo().
>>> I'd be inclined to drop "early_init" from them too, because they're
>>> basically all about early init, but Grant said he'd prefer not to I
>>> think. I've also renamed the flat tree tag constants to match libfdt.
>>
>> It is all about early init now in Linus' tree, but Stephen
>> Neuendorffer has patches that use the fdt code at driver probe time
>> for parsing device tree fragments that describe an FPGA add-in board.
>
> OK fair enough.
>
>>> I've left for_each_child_of_node(), because I read it as "of", but maybe
>>> it's "OF"?
>>
>> hahaha! I never considered that it might be OF, but now I probably
>> won't be able to help but read it that way! I like Geert's suggestion
>> of dt_for_each_child_node
>
> OK, I like it the way it is, but if the consensus is to change it then
> we can. There's a bunch actually:
>
> for_each_node_by_name(dn, name) \
> for_each_node_by_type(dn, type) \
> for_each_compatible_node(dn, type, compatible) \
> for_each_matching_node(dn, matches) \
> for_each_child_of_node(parent, child) \
> for_each_node_with_property(dn, prop_name) \
>
> So either dt_for_each_blah(), or for_each_dt_node_blah() ?
>
>>> /* include/linux/device.h */
>>> #define dt_match_table of_match_table
>>> #define dt_node of_node
>>
>> This could be very messy. I've nervous about using #define to rename
>> structure members. You'll need to check that any structure members
>> that use the same name as a global symbol are handled appropriately.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean about global symbols.
>
> I think it's fairly safe, in that direction, ie. defining the dt_*
> names. Neither of those strings appears anywhere in the tree at the
> moment (as a token).
>
> cheers
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> devicetree-discuss mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss

2010-11-26 05:50:12

by Michael Ellerman

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: RFC: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_() to dt_()

On Thu, 2010-11-25 at 18:42 -1000, Mitch Bradley wrote:
> On 11/25/2010 5:15 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-11-25 at 09:17 -0700, Grant Likely wrote:
> >> On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 6:34 AM, Michael Ellerman
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 2010-11-25 at 01:03 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> >>>> Hi all,
> >>>>
> >>>> There were some murmurings on IRC last week about renaming the of_*()
> >>>> routines.
> >>> ...
> >>>> The thinking is that on many platforms that use the of_() routines
> >>>> OpenFirmware is not involved at all, this is true even on many powerpc
> >>>> platforms. Also for folks who don't know the OpenFirmware connection
> >>>> it reads as "of", as in "a can of worms".
> >>> ...
> >>>> So I'm hoping people with either say "YES this is a great idea", or "NO
> >>>> this is stupid".
> >>>
> >>> I'm still hoping, but so far it seems most people have got better things
> >>> to do, and of those that do have an opinion the balance is slightly
> >>> positive.
> >>
> >> I assume you'll be also publishing the script that you use for
> >> generating the massive patch. I expect that there will be a few
> >> iterations of running the rename script to convert over all the
> >> stragglers.
> >
> > Yep sure, I'll just make it less crap first.
> >
> >> It should also be negotiated with Linus about when this
> >> patch should get applied. I do NOT want to cause massive merge pain
> >> during the merge window.
> >
> > Obviously.
> >
> >> Andrew/Linus: Before Michael proceeds too far with this rename, are
> >> you okay with a mass rename of the device tree functions from of_* to
> >> dt_*? Nobody likes the ambiguous 'of_' prefix ("of? of what?"), but
> >> to fix it means large cross-tree patches and potential merge
> >> conflicts.
> >
> > It'd also be good to hear from DaveM, sparc is the platform with the
> > strongest link to real OF AFAIK, so the of_() names make more sense
> > there.
>
>
> One Laptop Per Child ships real Open Firmware on its x86 Linux systems,
> of which approximately 2 million have been shipped or ordered. An ARM
> version, also with OFW, is in the works.

OK. I don't see any code under arch/x86 or arch/arm that uses of_()
routines though? Or is it under drivers or something?

> That said, I don't particularly like the abbreviation "of" either; I
> abbreviate Open Firmware as "OFW".
>
> I don't mind using "dt_" to apply to device tree things; I think it's
> clearer than "of_". Ideally, it would be nice to acknowledge the
> historical connection in some way, but confusing nomenclature probably
> is not the way to go about it.

Cool. I think there will still be a few things that have OF in the name,
at least for a while, and I'm sure the doco will still mention OF, so I
don't think the connection will be lost.

cheers

Attachments:

signature.asc (198.00 B)
This is a digitally signed message part

2010-11-26 07:15:58

by Grant Likely

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: RFC: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_() to dt_()

On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 10:50 PM, Michael Ellerman
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-11-25 at 18:42 -1000, Mitch Bradley wrote:
>> On 11/25/2010 5:15 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> > On Thu, 2010-11-25 at 09:17 -0700, Grant Likely wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 6:34 AM, Michael Ellerman
>> >> <[email protected]> ?wrote:
>> >>> On Thu, 2010-11-25 at 01:03 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> >>>> Hi all,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> There were some murmurings on IRC last week about renaming the of_*()
>> >>>> routines.
>> >>> ...
>> >>>> The thinking is that on many platforms that use the of_() routines
>> >>>> OpenFirmware is not involved at all, this is true even on many powerpc
>> >>>> platforms. Also for folks who don't know the OpenFirmware connection
>> >>>> it reads as "of", as in "a can of worms".
>> >>> ...
>> >>>> So I'm hoping people with either say "YES this is a great idea", or "NO
>> >>>> this is stupid".
>> >>>
>> >>> I'm still hoping, but so far it seems most people have got better things
>> >>> to do, and of those that do have an opinion the balance is slightly
>> >>> positive.
>> >>
>> >> I assume you'll be also publishing the script that you use for
>> >> generating the massive patch. ?I expect that there will be a few
>> >> iterations of running the rename script to convert over all the
>> >> stragglers.
>> >
>> > Yep sure, I'll just make it less crap first.
>> >
>> >> It should also be negotiated with Linus about when this
>> >> patch should get applied. ?I do NOT want to cause massive merge pain
>> >> during the merge window.
>> >
>> > Obviously.
>> >
>> >> Andrew/Linus: Before Michael proceeds too far with this rename, are
>> >> you okay with a mass rename of the device tree functions from of_* to
>> >> dt_*? ?Nobody likes the ambiguous 'of_' prefix ("of? ?of what?"), but
>> >> to fix it means large cross-tree patches and potential merge
>> >> conflicts.
>> >
>> > It'd also be good to hear from DaveM, sparc is the platform with the
>> > strongest link to real OF AFAIK, so the of_() names make more sense
>> > there.
>>
>>
>> One Laptop Per Child ships real Open Firmware on its x86 Linux systems,
>> of which approximately 2 million have been shipped or ordered. ?An ARM
>> version, also with OFW, is in the works.
>
> OK. I don't see any code under arch/x86 or arch/arm that uses of_()
> routines though? Or is it under drivers or something?
>
>> That said, I don't particularly like the abbreviation "of" either; I
>> abbreviate Open Firmware as "OFW".
>>
>> I don't mind using "dt_" to apply to device tree things; I think it's
>> clearer than "of_". ? Ideally, it would be nice to acknowledge the
>> historical connection in some way, but confusing nomenclature probably
>> is not the way to go about it.

Yes, I like the ofw_ prefix too, and briefly considered renaming to
that, but decide that dt_ was better due to the number of systems
using the device tree without real openfirmware.

However, the ofw_ prefix would make sense if any of the promtree code
is renamed.

> Cool. I think there will still be a few things that have OF in the name,
> at least for a while, and I'm sure the doco will still mention OF, so I
> don't think the connection will be lost.

Considering that pretty much all the documentation makes some
reference back to the openfirmware origins, I'm pretty sure the ofw
legacy is safe. :-)

g.

2010-11-26 07:37:05

by Mitch Bradley

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: RFC: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_() to dt_()

>> One Laptop Per Child ships real Open Firmware on its x86 Linux systems,
>> of which approximately 2 million have been shipped or ordered. An ARM
>> version, also with OFW, is in the works.
>
> OK. I don't see any code under arch/x86 or arch/arm that uses of_()
> routines though? Or is it under drivers or something?
>

Andres Salomon has been working for some time to get some Open Firmware
support for x86 upstream. As you can probably imagine, it has been slow
going, but seems to be getting close.

The OLPC ARM work is just beginning, so nothing has been submitted yet.
The first hardware prototypes are still being debugged. Lennert
Buytenhek is the key OS person who will be involved.

2010-11-29 05:55:37

by David Gibson

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: RFC: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_() to dt_()

On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 12:34:35AM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-11-25 at 01:03 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > There were some murmurings on IRC last week about renaming the of_*()
> > routines.
> ...
> > The thinking is that on many platforms that use the of_() routines
> > OpenFirmware is not involved at all, this is true even on many powerpc
> > platforms. Also for folks who don't know the OpenFirmware connection
> > it reads as "of", as in "a can of worms".
> ...
> > So I'm hoping people with either say "YES this is a great idea", or "NO
> > this is stupid".
>
> I'm still hoping, but so far it seems most people have got better things
> to do, and of those that do have an opinion the balance is slightly
> positive.
>
> So here's a first cut of a patch to add the new names. I've not touched
> of_platform because that is supposed to go away. That will lead to some
> odd looking code in the interim, but I think is the right approach.
>
> Most of these are straight renames, but some have changed more
> substantially. The routines for the flat tree have all become fdt_foo().

I'm a little uneasy about using the same prefix as libfdt (fdt_foo())
for routines that have a different implementation and different names
/ semantics to the libfdt routines.

--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson

Attachments:

(No filename) (1.46 kB)
signature.asc (198.00 B)
Digital signature Download all attachments

2010-11-29 06:07:43

by Grant Likely

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: RFC: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_() to dt_()

On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 10:55 PM, David Gibson
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 12:34:35AM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> Most of these are straight renames, but some have changed more
>> substantially. The routines for the flat tree have all become fdt_foo().
>
> I'm a little uneasy about using the same prefix as libfdt (fdt_foo())
> for routines that have a different implementation and different names
> / semantics to the libfdt routines.

I'd also be okay with either dtflat_ or flatdt_ for the prefix on
these routines.

g.

Subject: RFC: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_*() to dt_*()

Attachments:

Subject: Re: RFC: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_*() to dt_*()

Subject: Re: RFC: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_*() to dt_*()

Subject: RE: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_*() to dt_*()

Subject: Re: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_*() to dt_*()

Subject: Re: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_*() to dt_*()

Subject: Re: RFC: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_*() to dt_*()

Subject: RE: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_*() to dt_*()

Subject: Re: RFC: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_*() to dt_*()

Attachments:

Subject: Re: RFC: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_*() to dt_*()

Subject: Re: RFC: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_*() to dt_*()

Subject: Re: RFC: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_*() to dt_*()

Subject: Re: RFC: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_*() to dt_*()

Attachments:

Subject: Re: RFC: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_*() to dt_*()

Subject: Re: RFC: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_*() to dt_*()

Attachments:

Subject: Re: RFC: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_*() to dt_*()

Subject: Re: RFC: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_*() to dt_*()

Subject: Re: RFC: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_*() to dt_*()

Attachments:

Subject: Re: RFC: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_*() to dt_*()

Subject: RFC: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_() to dt_()

Subject: Re: RFC: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_() to dt_()

Subject: Re: RFC: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_() to dt_()

Subject: RE: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_() to dt_()

Subject: Re: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_() to dt_()

Subject: Re: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_() to dt_()

Subject: Re: RFC: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_() to dt_()

Subject: RE: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_() to dt_()

Subject: Re: RFC: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_() to dt_()

Subject: Re: RFC: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_() to dt_()

Subject: Re: RFC: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_() to dt_()

Subject: Re: RFC: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_() to dt_()

Subject: Re: RFC: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_() to dt_()

Subject: Re: RFC: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_() to dt_()

Subject: Re: RFC: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_() to dt_()

Subject: Re: RFC: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_() to dt_()

Subject: Re: RFC: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_() to dt_()

Subject: Re: RFC: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_() to dt_()

Subject: Re: RFC: Mega rename of device tree routines from of_() to dt_()