On 11/12/21 11:22, Pekka Paalanen wrote: [snip] >>> >>>> 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? > For me the term "native" is also vague. I would prefer to call it platform specific driver or non-generic driver instead. A problem is that "platform driver" has a very specific meaning in the kernel, which are drivers for devices in the "platform" bus (which is also a very overloaded term). > I'd think a non-native driver is something that e.g. ndiswrapper is Yeah, that's why I think that "generic" and "non-generic" is a better way to describe the drivers that could be used for any platform as long as the hardware was already initialized and a struct screen_info filled with data. > loading. Is simpledrm like ndiswrapper in a sense? IIRC, simpledrm is > the driver that would not consult this function, right? > Correct. Or maybe just 'bool drm_modeset_enabled()' ? After all, that's really what the "nomodeset" kernel param disables. The fact that DRM drivers abuse that boolean semantics to also prevent the drivers to load is a different topic. > > Thanks, > pq > Best regards, -- Javier Martinez Canillas Linux Engineering Red Hat
