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

[Maxime Ripard]

On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 09:57:22AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Maxime,
> 
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 9:44 AM Maxime Ripard <mripard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 09:19:07AM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> > > Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@xxxxxxx> writes:
> > > > 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.
> 
> With several callbacks using the same (field) name, it is very helpful
> to name the actual implementation by combining the struct type name
> and the field name.

I can't think of any (at least for a given object). Which one do you have in
mind?

> Anything else confuses the casual reader. Perhaps the real question is whether
> the structures should have "helper" in their name in the first place?

Those structures are meant for functions used by the helpers, they are not
helper functions.

Maxime

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature