On Tue, 26 Nov 2024, Maxime Ripard <mripard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Most functions returning enum drm_mode_status are called something_something_mode_valid(). Not check something. BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel
