On Sat, 19 Mar 2022 at 04:11, Lyude Paul <lyude@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Whoops, sorry! I was unsure of the preference in name we should go with so I > poked Ben on the side to ask them, but I can see they haven't yet responded. > I'll poke thme again and see if I can get a response. Yeah, please keep _prom as opposed to _rom. It's a reference to the NV_PROM device. Ben. > > On Fri, 2022-03-18 at 10:55 +0100, Christophe Leroy wrote: > > Hi Paul, > > > > Le 05/03/2022 à 10:51, Christophe Leroy a écrit : > > > > > > > > > Le 05/03/2022 à 08:38, Christophe Leroy a écrit : > > > > > > > > > > > > Le 04/03/2022 à 21:24, Lyude Paul a écrit : > > > > > This mostly looks good to me. Just one question (and one comment down > > > > > below > > > > > that needs addressing). Is this with ppc32? (I ask because ppc64le > > > > > doesn't > > > > > seem to hit this compilation error). > > > > > > > > That's with PPC64, see > > > > http://kisskb.ellerman.id.au/kisskb/branch/chleroy/head/252ba609bea83234d2e35841c19ae84c67b43ec7/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But that's not (yet) with the mainline tree. That's work I'm doing to > > > > cleanup our asm/asm-protoypes.h header. > > > > > > > > Since commit 4efca4ed05cb ("kbuild: modversions for EXPORT_SYMBOL() > > > > for asm") that file is dedicated to prototypes of functions defined in > > > > assembly. Therefore I'm trying to dispatch C functions prototypes in > > > > other headers. I wanted to move prom_init() prototype into asm/prom.h > > > > and then I hit the problem. > > > > > > > > In the beginning I was thinking about just changing the name of the > > > > function in powerpc, but as I see that M68K, MIPS and SPARC also have > > > > a prom_init() function, I thought it would be better to change the > > > > name in shadowrom.c to avoid any future conflict like the one I got > > > > while reworking the headers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @@ -57,8 +57,8 @@ prom_init(struct nvkm_bios *bios, const char > > > > > > *name) > > > > > > const struct nvbios_source > > > > > > nvbios_rom = { > > > > > > .name = "PROM", > > > > > > - .init = prom_init, > > > > > > - .fini = prom_fini, > > > > > > - .read = prom_read, > > > > > > + .init = nvbios_rom_init, > > > > > > + .fini = nvbios_rom_fini, > > > > > > + .read = nvbios_rom_read, > > > > > > > > > > Seeing as the source name is prom, I think using the naming convention > > > > > nvbios_prom_* would be better then nvbios_rom_*. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes I wasn't sure about the best naming as the file name is > > > > shadowrom.c and not shadowprom.c. > > > > > > > > I will send v2 using nvbios_prom_* as a name. > > > > > > While preparing v2 I remembered that in fact, I called the functions > > > nvbios_rom_* because the name of the nvbios_source struct is nvbios_rom, > > > so for me it made sense to use the name of the struct as a prefix for > > > the functions. > > > > > > So I'm OK to change it to nvbios_prom_* but it looks less logical to me. > > > > > > Please confirm you still prefer nvbios_prom as prefix to the function > > > names. > > > > > > > Are you still expecting a v2 for this patch ? > > > > As the name of the structure is nvbios_rom, do you really prefer the > > functions to be called nvbios_prom_* as you mentionned in your comment ? > > > > In that case, do you also expect the structure name to be changed to > > nvbios_prom ? > > > > Thanks > > Christophe > > > > -- > Cheers, > Lyude Paul (she/her) > Software Engineer at Red Hat >
