On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 12:47:26PM +0100, Arkadiusz Hiler wrote: > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 03:57:01PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 04:47:04PM +0100, Arkadiusz Hiler wrote: > > > GuC historically has two "startup" functions called _init() and _setup() > > > > > > Then HuC came with it's _init() and _load(). > > > > > > To make naming more consistent this commit renames intel_guc_setup() to > > > intel_guc_load() as it it seams more fitting (it's in intel_guc_loader.c > > > after all). > > > > Or init_hw as that is the initialisation phase it is called from. > > -Chris > > Since it's intel_guc_loader.c I somehow prefer _load() here. > > But intel_uc_load() which, is introduced with the series and call > intel_guc_load() can be renamed to intel_uc_init_hw() > > What do you think? We want to push the "phase verb" as far as it makes sense, especially along the chain i.e. driver -> subsystem -> subsubsystem -> ... Once we are in the handler, it should use the right functions named appropriate. I still think carrying the phase verb as far as possible is important (more important say for init_early) as that carries the information about the rest of the driver state and the limitations we must keep in mind. Good taste should prevail ofc; the actual work must be done by sensibly named functions. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
