[U-Boot] [PATCH 2/2] document network driver framework

[Mike Frysinger]

On Tuesday 21 July 2009 03:32:55 Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > Is this a generally-accepted naming convention?  I personally think
> > > it's crap, and since there isn't a single driver that uses it yet, you
> > > might say this is a bit ahead of the curve.
> >
> > some style needed to be suggested, and what Jean proposed is better than
> > what we have today (which is nothing)
>
> Arent't we pretty much doing what Linux is doing here, too? I see lots
> of XXX_init functions in the Linux network code, for example.
>
> > that's why i said "should", deprecated current naming, and noted existing
> > practice.  if you agree with the proposal, it's easy enough to run sed on
> > a few files to fix one function name.  you agree with my comment that
> > today's behavior is confusing even if you stare and bang on the code day
> > in and day out ?  it's even worse for the occasional observer ...
>
> Hm... renaming  something  from  "xxx_init()"  into  "xxx_register()"
> because  other  code  is also also using "xxx_init()" does not really
> make anything clearer to me. Actually IMO  it  just  adds  confusion,
> because  if  other's  use  "xxx_init()" I'd expect from a consistence
> point of view that we use "xxx_init()", too.

your reply reinforces my point.  i'm not talking about xxx_init(), i'm talking 
about xxx_initialize().  network drivers atm define both -- xxx_initialize() 
is to initialize the eth_driver structure and *register* with the eth layer, 
and xxx_init() to *initialize* the hardware.  i'm proposing renaming 
xxx_initialize() to xxx_register().
-mike
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20090721/e729fcc0/attachment-0001.pgp