On 04/19/2017 03:05 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
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
Right! This is what I thought too.
about:
pci_host_bus_new()
pci_host_bus_new_inplace()
pci_host_bus_new_with_irqs()
I like the names, but a following patch (5/6) modifies
the above functions to return void and create the bus
as a side effect.
So now we have a pci_host_bus_new that returns nothing?
Thanks,
Marcel
(the last one might be a bit long, though, especially as it takes so
many arguments already)
