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
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
