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 :) 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. > > /* > > * Match boards on PCI IDs and subsystem IDs. > > * Second set of IDs can be main only or missing completely. > > */ > > const static struct board_pciid_enable *board_match_pci_card_ids(enum > > board_match_phase phase) > > > > - * Second set of IDs can be main only or missing completely. > > + * Second set of IDs can contain primary IDs only or be missing completely. > > > > I tried to find an alternate wording. that's good, because i obviously missed the point of the whole sentence/method ;) > > 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? or maybe no... still dizzy from sleeping sorry :) -- Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner _______________________________________________ flashrom mailing list [email protected] http://www.flashrom.org/mailman/listinfo/flashrom
