On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 11:09:36AM +0000, Sakari Ailus wrote: > On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 02:04:39PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 01:44:21PM +0300, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > > Rename the sub-devices state information access functions, removing > > > "_state" and "_stream" from them. This makes them shorter and so more > > > convenient to use. No other functions will be needed to access this > > > information. > > > > The new names are too generic, and thus confusing. For instance, > > v4l2_subdev_get_format() is way too close to v4l2_subdev_get_fmt(). I'm > > fine dropping "_stream", but I would like to keep "_state". > > > > My intention was actually to rename v4l2_subdev_get_fmt() later on: it's > used in an ops struct, almost uniquely, so its name can be longer without > it being a nuisance. I can include this in the same set. No objection, as long as the new name is clear. > The reason for using a shorter names such as v4l2_subdev_get_format() is > that they're nicer to use in the code. The function names we've added > recently are often exceedingly long. There's hardly room for confusion in > this case either: these functions will remain as the only interface to > access information in sub-device state. I agree that long names are not nice, but too short names end up not being descriptive enough. As these functions operate on a state, I'd like to keep that information in the name to differenciate them from functions operating on the subdev, and use the same state-aware prefix for all similar functions (I expect we'll get more of them). If you can find a good short form for the v4l2_subdev_state_ prefix that we can use through the code base, that would be fine too. And before you ask v4l2_sd_st_ is not good :-) -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
