Hello, Danilo,
On April 24, 2025, 8:08 p.m. UTC Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 02:54:42PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 4/23/2025 10:06 AM, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> > [...]
> > >> +
> > >> + /// Probe for VBIOS extraction
> > >> + /// Once the VBIOS object is built, bar0 is not read for vbios
> > >> purposes anymore.
> > >> + pub(crate) fn probe(bar0: &Devres<Bar0>) -> Result<Self> {
> > >
> > > Let's not call it probe(), what about VBios::parse(), or simply
> > > VBios::new()?
> > >
> >
> > Yes, new() is better. I changed it.
> >
> > >> + // VBIOS data vector: As BIOS images are scanned, they are
> > >> added to this vector
> > >> + // for reference or copying into other data structures. It is
> > >> the entire
> > >> + // scanned contents of the VBIOS which progressively extends.
> > >> It is used
> > >> + // so that we do not re-read any contents that are already read
> > >> as we use
> > >> + // the cumulative length read so far, and re-read any gaps as
> > >> we extend
> > >> + // the length
> > >> + let mut data = KVec::new();
> > >> +
> > >> + // Loop through all the BiosImage and extract relevant ones and
> > >> relevant data from them
> > >> + let mut cur_offset = 0;
> > >
> > > I suggest to create a new type that contains data and offset and implement
> > > read_bios_image_at_offset() and friends as methods of this type. I think
> > > this
> > > would turn out much cleaner.
> > I moved it into struct Vbios {} itself instead of introducing a new type. Is
> > that Ok?
> >
> > I agree it is cleaner. Please see below link for this particular refactor
> > (moving data) and let me know if it looks Ok to you: http://bit.ly/4lHfDKZ
>
> I still think a new type would be better, the Option<KVec<u8>> that is only
> used
> for the construction of the actual type instance is a bit weird. It's
> basically
> two types in one, which is also why you need two options -- better separate
> them.
Ok, makes sense. Will make this change and see what it
looks like.
thanks,
- Joel
>
