[U-Boot] [PATCH 2/2] document network driver framework

[Ben Warren <biggerbadderben@gmail.com>]

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 21 July 2009 03:32:55 Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>   
>> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>     
>>>> Is this a generally-accepted naming convention?  I personally think
>>>> it's crap, and since there isn't a single driver that uses it yet, you
>>>> might say this is a bit ahead of the curve.
>>>>         
>>> some style needed to be suggested, and what Jean proposed is better than
>>> what we have today (which is nothing)
>>>       
>> Arent't we pretty much doing what Linux is doing here, too? I see lots
>> of XXX_init functions in the Linux network code, for example.
>>
>>     
>>> that's why i said "should", deprecated current naming, and noted existing
>>> practice.  if you agree with the proposal, it's easy enough to run sed on
>>> a few files to fix one function name.  you agree with my comment that
>>> today's behavior is confusing even if you stare and bang on the code day
>>> in and day out ?  it's even worse for the occasional observer ...
>>>       
>> Hm... renaming  something  from  "xxx_init()"  into  "xxx_register()"
>> because  other  code  is also also using "xxx_init()" does not really
>> make anything clearer to me. Actually IMO  it  just  adds  confusion,
>> because  if  other's  use  "xxx_init()" I'd expect from a consistence
>> point of view that we use "xxx_init()", too.
>>     
>
> your reply reinforces my point.  i'm not talking about xxx_init(), i'm talking 
> about xxx_initialize().  network drivers atm define both -- xxx_initialize() 
> is to initialize the eth_driver structure and *register* with the eth layer, 
> and xxx_init() to *initialize* the hardware.  i'm proposing renaming 
> xxx_initialize() to xxx_register().
> -mike
>   
I understand what you're saying, and  think in principle it's probably a 
good idea to rename to something other than xxx_initialize().  I just 
think a document that outlines best practices that are not in use *at 
all* seems a bit silly.

If we're going to go this way, IMHO we should change all function names 
at once.  It would be easy to do, but would be a huge, potentially 
intrusive patch that I'm not sure buys us much.

regards,
Ben