Am 15.08.2011 23:42 schrieb Stefan Tauner: > On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 22:40:58 +0200 > Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Am 03.08.2011 13:40 schrieb Stefan Tauner: >> >>> On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 09:02:52 +0200 >>> Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Suggestion: >>>> struct board_pciid_enable -> struct board_match >>>> board_match_coreboot_name() -> board_match_cbname() >>>> >>>> What do you think? >>>> >>>> >>> looks fine imo. >>> board_match_pci_card_ids could also be renamed to board_match_pci_ids >>> and if you are at it please change the comment of it: >>> >>> >> Done. >> > oh my. now that i see the code, i think renaming the board enables to > board_match is really a bad idea. mainly because we use "match" as verb > in other places, but here as substantive. > e.g. > static const struct board_match *board_match_cbname > a function that matches boards according to their cbname should return > a board, not a "board match". it is just a question of taste, but i > find it awful :) >
It's a trap! The struct is there to match a board, so struct board_match is exactly the right name for the _type_. The name of the function is another thing, you could probably call it match_board_match_cbname, but that would be silly, so we can either call it match_board_cbname or board_match_cbname. And the name of the variable which stores the result of the function call is even another thing, and there the name board might be appropriate. > the wiki table is named board_info hmhm maybe board_detail, but that's > long.. :/ > what about just "board"? > another way to mitigate "my" problem would be to no use match as a verb > for the method names, but using "get" or "find" instead. > "get" has the wrong semantic implication for the cbname matching, and "find" as in board_find_cbname suffers from the same problem because we're NOT interested in finding the cbname of the board, but rather in looking for a board which matches the supplied cbname. >>> aaaand if we change board_match_pci_card_ids we should also change >>> pci_card_find to pci_dev_find or something like that... :) >>> >>> >> Well, if we rename that one, we'd have to call it pci_dev_subsys_find, >> and that's a net loss from the 80 column perspective, but it may indeed >> clarify the code. Further input is appreciated. >> > why do we have to? we find pci devs, not pci dev subsystems ;) > hm maybe it should be find_pci_dev? > pci_dev_find() looks for a device matching the supplied vendor+dev IDs. pci_card_find() looks for a device matching the supplied vendor+dev+subvendor+subdev IDs. The name "card" was picked to allow differentiating between PCI devices (cards) which share vendor+dev ID, but have different subvendor+subdev IDs. That's pretty common for network cards where dozens of vendors use the same network chip (and thus fixed vendor+dev ID), but completely different PCBs. Regards, Carl-Daniel -- http://www.hailfinger.org/ _______________________________________________ flashrom mailing list [email protected] http://www.flashrom.org/mailman/listinfo/flashrom
