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

[Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1607 bytes --]

On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 02:24:12PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> 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.

But it doesn't check whether the mode is valid or not. It checks whether
a given clock rate is within reasonable tolerance from the expected
pixel clock.

Maxime

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 269 bytes --]