Re: [PATCH] drm/ssd130x: Drop _helper prefix from struct drm_*_helper_funcs callbacks

[Thomas Zimmermann]

Hi

Am 21.09.23 um 09:44 schrieb Maxime Ripard:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 09:19:07AM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> > Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@xxxxxxx> writes:
> >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > Am 14.09.23 um 21:51 schrieb Javier Martinez Canillas:
> > > > The driver uses a naming convention where functions for struct drm_*_funcs
> > > > callbacks are named ssd130x_$object_$operation, while the callbacks for
> > > > struct drm_*_helper_funcs are named ssd130x_$object_helper_$operation.
> > > >
> > > > The idea is that this helper_ prefix in the function names denote that are
> > > > for struct drm_*_helper_funcs callbacks. This convention was copied from
> > > > other drivers, when ssd130x was written but Maxime pointed out that is the
> > > > exception rather than the norm.
> > >
> > > I guess you found this in my code. I want to point out that I use the
> > > _helper infix to signal that these are callback for
> > > drm_primary_plane_helper_funcs and *not* drm_primary_plane_funcs. The
> > > naming is intentional.
> >
> > Yes, that's what tried to say in the commit message and indeed I got the
> > convention from drivers in drivers/gpu/drm/tiny. In fact I believe these
> > function names are since first iteration of the driver, when was meant to
> > be a tiny driver.
> >
> > According to Maxime it's the exception rather than the rule and suggested
> > to change it, I don't really have a strong opinion on either naming TBH.
>
> Maybe that's just me, but the helper in the name indeed throws me off. In my
> mind, it's supposed to be used only for helpers, not functions implementing the
> helpers hooks.

Tying the function name to its _funcs structure makes perfect sense to 
me, as it helps to structure the driver code. So I always use the 
_helper_ infix.

In contrast, the DRM helpers that implement certain functionality does 
not seem to follow any naming scheme. For example 
drm_atomic_helper_check() implements struct 
drm_mode_config_funcs.atomic_check. To me, it's not obvious that these 
two belong together.  And in the same structure, there's fb_create, 
which is provided by drm_gem_fb_create_with_dirty(). This one doesn't 
even mention that it's a helper.

Best regards
Thomas

> Maxime

--
Thomas Zimmermann
Graphics Driver Developer
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH
Frankenstrasse 146, 90461 Nuernberg, Germany
GF: Ivo Totev, Andrew Myers, Andrew McDonald, Boudien Moerman
HRB 36809 (AG Nuernberg)

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature