On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 09:57:22AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Maxime, > > On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 9:44 AM Maxime Ripard <mripard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 09:19:07AM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > > > Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@xxxxxxx> writes: > > > > Am 14.09.23 um 21:51 schrieb Javier Martinez Canillas: > > > >> The driver uses a naming convention where functions for struct drm_*_funcs > > > >> callbacks are named ssd130x_$object_$operation, while the callbacks for > > > >> struct drm_*_helper_funcs are named ssd130x_$object_helper_$operation. > > > >> > > > >> The idea is that this helper_ prefix in the function names denote that are > > > >> for struct drm_*_helper_funcs callbacks. This convention was copied from > > > >> other drivers, when ssd130x was written but Maxime pointed out that is the > > > >> exception rather than the norm. > > > > > > > > I guess you found this in my code. I want to point out that I use the > > > > _helper infix to signal that these are callback for > > > > drm_primary_plane_helper_funcs and *not* drm_primary_plane_funcs. The > > > > naming is intentional. > > > > > > Yes, that's what tried to say in the commit message and indeed I got the > > > convention from drivers in drivers/gpu/drm/tiny. In fact I believe these > > > function names are since first iteration of the driver, when was meant to > > > be a tiny driver. > > > > > > According to Maxime it's the exception rather than the rule and suggested > > > to change it, I don't really have a strong opinion on either naming TBH. > > > > Maybe that's just me, but the helper in the name indeed throws me off. In my > > mind, it's supposed to be used only for helpers, not functions implementing the > > helpers hooks. > > With several callbacks using the same (field) name, it is very helpful > to name the actual implementation by combining the struct type name > and the field name. I can't think of any (at least for a given object). Which one do you have in mind? > Anything else confuses the casual reader. Perhaps the real question is whether > the structures should have "helper" in their name in the first place? Those structures are meant for functions used by the helpers, they are not helper functions. Maxime
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
