linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] drm/ssd130x: Drop _helper prefix from struct drm_*_helper

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87wmwo3q50.fsf@minerva.mail-host-address-is-not-set>
Date:   Mon, 18 Sep 2023 09:19:07 +0200
From:   Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@...hat.com>
To:     Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/ssd130x: Drop _helper prefix from struct
 drm_*_helper_funcs callbacks

Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de> writes:

> Hi
>
> Am 14.09.23 um 21:51 schrieb Javier Martinez Canillas:
>> The driver uses a naming convention where functions for struct drm_*_funcs
>> callbacks are named ssd130x_$object_$operation, while the callbacks for
>> struct drm_*_helper_funcs are named ssd130x_$object_helper_$operation.
>> 
>> The idea is that this helper_ prefix in the function names denote that are
>> for struct drm_*_helper_funcs callbacks. This convention was copied from
>> other drivers, when ssd130x was written but Maxime pointed out that is the
>> exception rather than the norm.
>
> I guess you found this in my code. I want to point out that I use the 
> _helper infix to signal that these are callback for 
> drm_primary_plane_helper_funcs and *not* drm_primary_plane_funcs. The 
> naming is intentional.
>

Yes, that's what tried to say in the commit message and indeed I got the
convention from drivers in drivers/gpu/drm/tiny. In fact I believe these
function names are since first iteration of the driver, when was meant to
be a tiny driver.

According to Maxime it's the exception rather than the rule and suggested
to change it, I don't really have a strong opinion on either naming TBH.

> Best regards
> Thomas
>

-- 
Best regards,

Javier Martinez Canillas
Core Platforms
Red Hat