On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 12:16:34PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Mon, 25 Nov 2024, Maxime Ripard <mripard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I wonder about the naming though (and prototype). I doesn't really > > validates a mode, but rather makes sure that a given rate is a good > > approximation of a pixel clock. So maybe something like > > drm_mode_check_pixel_clock? > > Quoting myself from a few weeks back: > > """ > Random programming thought of the day: "check" is generally a terrible > word in a function name. > > Checking stuff is great, but what do you expect to happen if the check > passes/fails? Do you expect the function to return on fail, or throw an > exception? Or just log about it? If you return a value, what should the > return value mean? It's hard to know without looking it up. > > Prefer predicates instead, is_stuff_okay() is better than > check_stuff(). Or assert_stuff() if you don't return on failures. > """ Both is_stuff_okay() or assert_stuff() return a boolean in my mind. If you want to return a mode status enum, I don't think they are better names. Maxime
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
