On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 10:46:05AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 10:12 AM Maxime Ripard <mripard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 09:57:22AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > 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? > > E.g. atomic_check(): > > drm_crtc_helper_funcs.atomic_check() > drm_encoder_helper_funcs.atomic_check() > drm_connector_helper_funcs.atomic_check() > drm_plane_helper_funcs.atomic_check() Right, but that's between objects, not between drm_$OBJECT_funcs and drm_$OBJECT_helper_funcs. So conflicts for a single given driver is unlikely, and can be solved by using, say, $DRIVER_crtc_atomic_check and $DRIVER_plane_atomic_check. > Interestingly, drm_mode_config_helper_funcs does not have an > atomic_check() callback, but drm_mode_config_funcs has. > > > > 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. > > That might be how they started, but to me it looks like all these helpers > are no longer helpers, but part of the core... They are part of the core, but very much optional still. i915 doesn't use a lot of helpers, vc4 (used to?) rolls its own atomic_commit implementation, etc. It's really not uncommon. Maxime
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
