On 9/3/20 7:22 PM, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 12:16:47PM -0400, Eduardo Habkost wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 02:45:12PM +0200, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé >> wrote: >>> On 9/3/20 12:42 AM, Eduardo Habkost wrote: >>>> This will make the type name constant consistent with the name of >>>> the type checking macro. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> >>>> --- >>>> Cc: "Hervé Poussineau" <hpous...@reactos.org> >>>> Cc: qemu-...@nongnu.org >>>> Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org >>>> --- >>>> include/hw/isa/pc87312.h | 4 ++-- >>>> hw/isa/pc87312.c | 2 +- >>>> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/include/hw/isa/pc87312.h b/include/hw/isa/pc87312.h >>>> index a65168a157..da8dc5ddf5 100644 >>>> --- a/include/hw/isa/pc87312.h >>>> +++ b/include/hw/isa/pc87312.h >>>> @@ -29,10 +29,10 @@ >>>> #include "qom/object.h" >>>> >>>> >>>> -#define TYPE_PC87312_SUPERIO "pc87312" >>>> +#define TYPE_PC87312 "pc87312" >>> >>> We loose self-documentation. What is a TYPE_PC87312 >>> when reviewing a board setup code? Should we add a >>> comment /* Create the Super I/O */? The current name >>> is self-describing... > > I've just realized that TYPE_PC87312_SUPERIO is not used anywhere > in the code, so I don't understand where exactly this comment > applies. > >>> >>> Is it easier to rename the type as 'pc87312-superio'? >> >> This is an option. In that case, I would like to rename the >> PC87312 type checking macro to PC87312_SUPERIO, if that's OK. >> >> The actual string name doesn't matter for the QOM macros, by the >> way. We can still rename it if you want to, but we don't have >> to. > > Based on Daniel's suggestion of keeping the macro names > consistent with the QOM type name string, I'd like to keep the > original color of the bike shed and keep this patch as is. > > I will queue this patch on machine-next with Hervé's Reviewed-by > line. > > If anybody wants to rename the user-visible QOM type name string > later, that's OK. But I don't think this should be done as part > of the QOM boilerplate cleanup work.
Understood, no problem.
