On Tuesday 21 July 2009 03:32:55 Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
Is this a generally-accepted naming convention? I personally think it's crap, and since there isn't a single driver that uses it yet, you might say this is a bit ahead of the curve.
some style needed to be suggested, and what Jean proposed is better than what we have today (which is nothing)
Arent't we pretty much doing what Linux is doing here, too? I see lots of XXX_init functions in the Linux network code, for example.
that's why i said "should", deprecated current naming, and noted existing practice. if you agree with the proposal, it's easy enough to run sed on a few files to fix one function name. you agree with my comment that today's behavior is confusing even if you stare and bang on the code day in and day out ? it's even worse for the occasional observer ...
Hm... renaming something from "xxx_init()" into "xxx_register()" because other code is also also using "xxx_init()" does not really make anything clearer to me. Actually IMO it just adds confusion, because if other's use "xxx_init()" I'd expect from a consistence point of view that we use "xxx_init()", too.
your reply reinforces my point. i'm not talking about xxx_init(), i'm talking about xxx_initialize(). network drivers atm define both -- xxx_initialize() is to initialize the eth_driver structure and *register* with the eth layer, and xxx_init() to *initialize* the hardware. i'm proposing renaming xxx_initialize() to xxx_register(). -mike