Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <b3e5914f649a9cdc35fbbe9f399d3806f13c3a6f.camel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/nouveau/bios: Rename prom_init() and friends
 functions
From:   Lyude Paul <lyude@redhat.com>
To:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>,
        Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@redhat.com>,
        Karol Herbst <kherbst@redhat.com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc:     dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, nouveau@lists.freedesktop.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Fri, 18 Mar 2022 14:10:52 -0400
In-Reply-To: <9aebcbbf-aaba-f7e8-7397-18284e74ab0d@csgroup.eu>
References: <2d97ae92b9c06214be0e088a72cf303eb591bf01.1646414295.git.christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
         <47e09d6010852db928c0de29b89450ea7eee74d8.camel@redhat.com>
         <edb9aabd-09af-ae0c-348d-f0500e3405d7@csgroup.eu>
         <672043db-5290-293c-fde4-440989c78d09@csgroup.eu>
         <9aebcbbf-aaba-f7e8-7397-18284e74ab0d@csgroup.eu>
Organization: Red Hat Inc.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.42.4 (3.42.4-1.fc35) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

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