On Fri, 12 Nov 2021 11:09:13 +0100
Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi
>
> Am 12.11.21 um 10:39 schrieb Javier Martinez Canillas:
> > Hello Pekka,
> >
> > On 11/12/21 09:56, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> these ideas make sense to me, so FWIW,
> >>
> >> Acked-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >> There is one nitpick I'd like to ask about:
> >>
> >> +bool drm_get_modeset(void)
> >> +{
> >> + return !drm_nomodeset;
> >> +}
> >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_get_modeset);
> >>
> >> Doesn't "get" have a special meaning in the kernel land, like "take a
> >> strong reference on an object and return it"?
> >
> > That's a very good point.
> >
> >> As this is just returning bool without changing anything, the usual
> >> word to use is "is". Since this function is also used at most once per
> >> driver, which is rarely, it could have a long and descriptive name.
> >>
> >> For example:
> >>
> >> bool drm_is_modeset_driver_allowed(void);
>
> I'd nominate
>
> bool drm_native_drivers_enabled()
>
> This is what HW-specific drivers want to query in their init/probing
> code. The actual semantics of this decision is hidden from the driver.
> It's also easier to read than the other name IMHO
Ok, but what is a "native driver"? Or a "non-native driver"?
Is that established kernel terminology?
I'd think a non-native driver is something that e.g. ndiswrapper is
loading. Is simpledrm like ndiswrapper in a sense? IIRC, simpledrm is
the driver that would not consult this function, right?
Thanks,
pq
>
> Best regards
> Thomas
>
> >>
> >
> > Yeah, naming is hard. Jani also mentioned that he didn't like this
> > function name, so I don't mind to re-spin the series only for that.
> >
> >> - "drm" is the namespace
> >> - "is" implies it is a read-only boolean inspection
> >> - "modeset" is the feature being checked
> >> - "driver" implies it is supposed gate driver loading or
> >> initialization, rather than modesets after drivers have loaded
> >> - "allowed" says it is asking about general policy rather than what a
> >> driver does
> >>
> >
> > I believe that name is more verbose than needed. But don't have a
> > strong opinion and could use it if others agree.
> >
> >> Just a bikeshed, I'll leave it to actual kernel devs to say if this
> >> would be more appropriate or worth it.
> >>
> >
> > I think is worth it and better to do it now before the patches land, but
> > we could wait for others to chime in.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > --
> > Javier Martinez Canillas
> > Linux Engineering
> > Red Hat
> >
>
Attachment:
pgpsTMzUH9cIq.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
