Re: [PATCH] drm/nouveau/bios: Rename prom_init() and friends functions

[Christophe Leroy]

Le 04/03/2022 à 21:24, Lyude Paul a écrit :
> This mostly looks good to me. Just one question (and one comment down below
> that needs addressing). Is this with ppc32? (I ask because ppc64le doesn't
> seem to hit this compilation error).

That's with PPC64, see 
http://kisskb.ellerman.id.au/kisskb/branch/chleroy/head/252ba609bea83234d2e35841c19ae84c67b43ec7/

But that's not (yet) with the mainline tree. That's work I'm doing to 
cleanup our asm/asm-protoypes.h header.

Since commit 4efca4ed05cb ("kbuild: modversions for EXPORT_SYMBOL() for 
asm") that file is dedicated to prototypes of functions defined in 
assembly. Therefore I'm trying to dispatch C functions prototypes in 
other headers. I wanted to move prom_init() prototype into asm/prom.h 
and then I hit the problem.

In the beginning I was thinking about just changing the name of the 
function in powerpc, but as I see that M68K, MIPS and SPARC also have a 
prom_init() function, I thought it would be better to change the name in 
shadowrom.c to avoid any future conflict like the one I got while 
reworking the headers.


>> @@ -57,8 +57,8 @@ prom_init(struct nvkm_bios *bios, const char *name)
>>   const struct nvbios_source
>>   nvbios_rom = {
>>          .name = "PROM",
>> -       .init = prom_init,
>> -       .fini = prom_fini,
>> -       .read = prom_read,
>> +       .init = nvbios_rom_init,
>> +       .fini = nvbios_rom_fini,
>> +       .read = nvbios_rom_read,
> 
> Seeing as the source name is prom, I think using the naming convention
> nvbios_prom_* would be better then nvbios_rom_*.
> 

Yes I wasn't sure about the best naming as the file name is shadowrom.c 
and not shadowprom.c.

I will send v2 using nvbios_prom_* as a name.

Christophe