On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:42:07 -0300 Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 10:29:26AM +1000, David Gibson wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 07:17:21PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > > > pci_bus_new*() and pci_register_bus() work only when the 'parent' > > > argument is a PCI_HOST_BRIDGE object. Rename them to reflect that they > > > are meant to initialize a bus that's in a PCI host bridge. > > > > > > The new function names are: > > > * pci_host_bus_init() (replacing pci_bus_new()) > > > * pci_host_bus_init_inplace() (replacing pci_bus_new_inplace()) > > > * pci_host_bus_init_irqs() (replacing pci_register_bus()) > > > > I like the idea, but I'm not terribly convinced by these names. > > Aren't functions which allocate objects usually called whatever_new() > > rather than whatever_init()? And pci_register_bus() appears to do > > more than just initialize irqs. > > I agree the names aren't terribly clear. This is what they are > supposed to mean: > > * pci_host_bus_init(phb) initializes phb->bus. > * pci_host_bus_init(phb) initializes phb->bus using an > already-allocated object. > * pci_host_bus_init_irqs() does the same as pci_host_bus_init(), > but also calls pci_bus_irqs(). > > I plan to submit API documentation comments later. I am open to > alternative name suggestions. > pci_host_bus_init_irqs() sounds as if it would only init irqs. What about: pci_host_bus_new() pci_host_bus_new_inplace() pci_host_bus_new_with_irqs() (the last one might be a bit long, though, especially as it takes so many arguments already)
