On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 02:54:42PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>
>
> On 4/23/2025 10:06 AM, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> [...]
> >> +
> >> + /// Probe for VBIOS extraction
> >> + /// Once the VBIOS object is built, bar0 is not read for vbios
> >> purposes anymore.
> >> + pub(crate) fn probe(bar0: &Devres<Bar0>) -> Result<Self> {
> >
> > Let's not call it probe(), what about VBios::parse(), or simply
> > VBios::new()?
> >
>
> Yes, new() is better. I changed it.
>
> >> + // VBIOS data vector: As BIOS images are scanned, they are added
> >> to this vector
> >> + // for reference or copying into other data structures. It is the
> >> entire
> >> + // scanned contents of the VBIOS which progressively extends. It
> >> is used
> >> + // so that we do not re-read any contents that are already read
> >> as we use
> >> + // the cumulative length read so far, and re-read any gaps as we
> >> extend
> >> + // the length
> >> + let mut data = KVec::new();
> >> +
> >> + // Loop through all the BiosImage and extract relevant ones and
> >> relevant data from them
> >> + let mut cur_offset = 0;
> >
> > I suggest to create a new type that contains data and offset and implement
> > read_bios_image_at_offset() and friends as methods of this type. I think
> > this
> > would turn out much cleaner.
> I moved it into struct Vbios {} itself instead of introducing a new type. Is
> that Ok?
>
> I agree it is cleaner. Please see below link for this particular refactor
> (moving data) and let me know if it looks Ok to you: http://bit.ly/4lHfDKZ
I still think a new type would be better, the Option<KVec<u8>> that is only used
for the construction of the actual type instance is a bit weird. It's basically
two types in one, which is also why you need two options -- better separate
them.
