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

[Mitch Bradley <wmb-D5eQfiDGL7eakBO8gow8eQ@public.gmane.org>]

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
>> <michael-Gsx/Oe8HsFggBc27wqDAHg@public.gmane.org>  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
> devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org
> https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss