Nouveau - Mar 2022 - [PATCH] drm/nouveau/bios: Rename prom_init() and friends functions

Le 04/03/2022 ? 21:24, Lyude Paul a ?crit?:
> This mostly looks good to me. Just one question (and one comment down below
> that needs addressing). Is this with ppc32? (I ask because ppc64le
doesn't
> seem to hit this compilation error).
That's with PPC64, see 
http://kisskb.ellerman.id.au/kisskb/branch/chleroy/head/252ba609bea83234d2e35841c19ae84c67b43ec7/

But that's not (yet) with the mainline tree. That's work I'm doing
to
cleanup our asm/asm-protoypes.h header.

Since commit 4efca4ed05cb ("kbuild: modversions for EXPORT_SYMBOL() for 
asm") that file is dedicated to prototypes of functions defined in 
assembly. Therefore I'm trying to dispatch C functions prototypes in 
other headers. I wanted to move prom_init() prototype into asm/prom.h 
and then I hit the problem.

In the beginning I was thinking about just changing the name of the 
function in powerpc, but as I see that M68K, MIPS and SPARC also have a 
prom_init() function, I thought it would be better to change the name in 
shadowrom.c to avoid any future conflict like the one I got while 
reworking the headers.

>> @@ -57,8 +57,8 @@ prom_init(struct nvkm_bios *bios, const char *name)
>>  ?const struct nvbios_source
>>  ?nvbios_rom = {
>>  ????????.name = "PROM",
>> -???????.init = prom_init,
>> -???????.fini = prom_fini,
>> -???????.read = prom_read,
>> +???????.init = nvbios_rom_init,
>> +???????.fini = nvbios_rom_fini,
>> +???????.read = nvbios_rom_read,
> 
> Seeing as the source name is prom, I think using the naming convention
> nvbios_prom_* would be better then nvbios_rom_*.
> 
Yes I wasn't sure about the best naming as the file name is shadowrom.c 
and not shadowprom.c.

I will send v2 using nvbios_prom_* as a name.

Christophe

Le 05/03/2022 ? 08:38, Christophe Leroy a ?crit?:
> 
> 
> Le 04/03/2022 ? 21:24, Lyude Paul a ?crit?:
>> This mostly looks good to me. Just one question (and one comment down 
>> below
>> that needs addressing). Is this with ppc32? (I ask because ppc64le 
>> doesn't
>> seem to hit this compilation error).
> 
> That's with PPC64, see 
>
http://kisskb.ellerman.id.au/kisskb/branch/chleroy/head/252ba609bea83234d2e35841c19ae84c67b43ec7/
> 
> 
> But that's not (yet) with the mainline tree. That's work I'm
doing to
> cleanup our asm/asm-protoypes.h header.
> 
> Since commit 4efca4ed05cb ("kbuild: modversions for EXPORT_SYMBOL()
for
> asm") that file is dedicated to prototypes of functions defined in 
> assembly. Therefore I'm trying to dispatch C functions prototypes in 
> other headers. I wanted to move prom_init() prototype into asm/prom.h 
> and then I hit the problem.
> 
> In the beginning I was thinking about just changing the name of the 
> function in powerpc, but as I see that M68K, MIPS and SPARC also have a 
> prom_init() function, I thought it would be better to change the name in 
> shadowrom.c to avoid any future conflict like the one I got while 
> reworking the headers.
> 
> 
>>> @@ -57,8 +57,8 @@ prom_init(struct nvkm_bios *bios, const char
*name)
>>> ??const struct nvbios_source
>>> ??nvbios_rom = {
>>> ?????????.name = "PROM",
>>> -???????.init = prom_init,
>>> -???????.fini = prom_fini,
>>> -???????.read = prom_read,
>>> +???????.init = nvbios_rom_init,
>>> +???????.fini = nvbios_rom_fini,
>>> +???????.read = nvbios_rom_read,
>>
>> Seeing as the source name is prom, I think using the naming convention
>> nvbios_prom_* would be better then nvbios_rom_*.
>>
> 
> Yes I wasn't sure about the best naming as the file name is shadowrom.c
> and not shadowprom.c.
> 
> I will send v2 using nvbios_prom_* as a name.
While preparing v2 I remembered that in fact, I called the functions 
nvbios_rom_* because the name of the nvbios_source struct is nvbios_rom, 
so for me it made sense to use the name of the struct as a prefix for 
the functions.

So I'm OK to change it to nvbios_prom_* but it looks less logical to me.

Please confirm you still prefer nvbios_prom as prefix to the function names.

Christophe