Hi Masahiro, On 17 November 2014 11:49, Masahiro Yamada <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Simon, > > > On Mon, 17 Nov 2014 09:22:19 +0000 > Simon Glass <[email protected]> wrote: >> > --- a/drivers/core/device.c >> > +++ b/drivers/core/device.c >> > @@ -157,11 +157,9 @@ int device_bind_by_name(struct udevice *parent, bool >> > pre_reloc_only, >> > { >> > struct driver *drv; >> > >> > - drv = lists_driver_lookup_name(info->name); >> > + drv = __lists_driver_lookup_name(info->name, pre_reloc_only); >> >> This patch looks good, except that I would prefer >> lists_driver_lookup_name_prereloc() to __lists_driver_lookup_name(). >> The __ seems like an internal compiler name to me. So can you rename >> it? > > Indeed. I think __ should be used carefully especially when it comes to > host programs, but I think we can play it by ear in standalone binaries > such as the kernel and U-boot code. > > I often see "__" prefixes in Linux and in my understanding, > __foo() is a "use it carefully" version or locally used interface of foo() > (for example, when the resources are not protected by spinlocks, etc.). > So, I often use it when I cannot invent a good func name. > > Hmm, lists_driver_lookup_name_prereloc() is already too long > and __prereloc is a bit misleading because it is used both before and after > relocation, > isn't it?
OK that seems fair enough if used sparingly. I can't think of a great name either and we don't really want to pollute the code with the pre_reloc_only parameter since it will be used in many places. Acked-by: Simon Glass <[email protected]> Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
