From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Warren Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 13:55:34 -0700 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 2/2] document network driver framework In-Reply-To: <200907211638.16437.vapier@gentoo.org> References: <4A5F6524.7040909@gmail.com> <200907210228.09882.vapier@gentoo.org> <20090721073255.A0543832E416@gemini.denx.de> <200907211638.16437.vapier@gentoo.org> Message-ID: <4A662B46.5020701@gmail.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de 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