Dear Mike Frysinger, In message <200907210228.09882.vap...@gentoo.org> you 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. Best regards, Wolfgang Denk -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: w...@denx.de The one who says it cannot be done should never interrupt the one who is doing it. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
