Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] drm/modes: introduce drm_mode_validate_mode() helper function

[Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>]

On Tue, 26 Nov 2024, Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 12:16:34PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Nov 2024, Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org> wrote:
>> > I wonder about the naming though (and prototype). I doesn't really
>> > validates a mode, but rather makes sure that a given rate is a good
>> > approximation of a pixel clock. So maybe something like
>> > drm_mode_check_pixel_clock?
>> 
>> Quoting myself from a few weeks back:
>> 
>> """
>> Random programming thought of the day: "check" is generally a terrible
>> word in a function name.
>> 
>> Checking stuff is great, but what do you expect to happen if the check
>> passes/fails? Do you expect the function to return on fail, or throw an
>> exception? Or just log about it? If you return a value, what should the
>> return value mean? It's hard to know without looking it up.
>> 
>> Prefer predicates instead, is_stuff_okay() is better than
>> check_stuff(). Or assert_stuff() if you don't return on failures.
>> """
>
> Both is_stuff_okay() or assert_stuff() return a boolean in my mind. If
> you want to return a mode status enum, I don't think they are better
> names.

Most functions returning enum drm_mode_status are called
something_something_mode_valid(). Not check something.

BR,
Jani.


-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel