[PATCH v1 02/43] binman: Refactor binman_entry_find() to allow other nodes

[Bin Meng]

+Tom,

On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 10:23 AM Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Bin,
>
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 at 20:33, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Simon,
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 11:57 AM Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > At present we can only read from a top-level binman node entry. Refactor
> > > this function to produce a second local function which supports reading
> > > from any node.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
> > > ---
> > >
> > >  lib/binman.c | 18 ++++++++++++------
> > >  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/lib/binman.c b/lib/binman.c
> > > index dc3a880882..79d01230dd 100644
> > > --- a/lib/binman.c
> > > +++ b/lib/binman.c
> > > @@ -29,25 +29,31 @@ struct binman_info {
> > >
> > >  static struct binman_info *binman;
> > >
> > > -int binman_entry_find(const char *name, struct binman_entry *entry)
> > > +int binman_entry_find_(ofnode node, const char *name, struct binman_entry *entry)
> >
> > This one should be static. We really should agree on a naming
> > convention for such internal APIs. I would prefer adding _internal
> > suffix, or using __ prefix
>
> Well I think internal is too long and I like a trailing underscore.
>

The trailing underscore is easy to be misread.

> The trailing double underscore is reserved for the compiler.
>

What I prefer is the leading double underscore which I think is allowed.

> Another option is to drop the prefix, so:
>
> find_entry(...)

Regards,
Bin