On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 02:24:12PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: > 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. But it doesn't check whether the mode is valid or not. It checks whether a given clock rate is within reasonable tolerance from the expected pixel clock. Maxime
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
