[RFC] mainboard.c: Unify name of device/board enable function

[Paul Menzel]

Dear coreboot folks,

to make the output of `diff` for `mainboard.c` smaller, Jens Rottmann
submitted a patch, to unify the name of the device enable function for
AMD Family14 boards [1].

struct chip_operations mainboard_ops = {
        	.enable_dev = inagua_enable,
        };

Naming this function is not uniform between the boards in the tree. AMD
based boards, seem to use *boardname*_enable, Intel boards
`mainboard_enable`. There is for example also `mb_enable` in the tree
and Jens proposed `enable_dev`.

If there are no objections to unification, what should the name for the
function be? I like Jens’ proposal as `enable_dev` is shorter than
`mainboard_enable` and it is clear that the struct member `.enable_dev`
gets set to it.

Please comment on this, so a patch can be submitted.

Thanks,

Paul

[1] http://review.coreboot.org/#/c/2464/1/src/mainboard/amd/inagua/mainboard.c

[RFC] mainboard.c: Unify name of device/board enable function

[Peter Stuge]

Paul Menzel wrote:
>     struct chip_operations mainboard_ops = {
>     	.enable_dev = inagua_enable,
>     };
>
> Naming this function is not uniform between the boards in the tree.

Depending on how mainboard_ops is used in all the boards maybe we
want to simply remove it completely.
> If there are no objections to unification, what should the name for the
> function be?

Function names should try to be descriptive. "enable_dev" is not very
descriptive. I like "mainboard_enable" because it makes output such
as

printk("%s: foo", __func__);

useful.
> Please comment on this, so a patch can be submitted.

I'd +2 a commit which renames all to mainboard_enable. It would be
very nice to also add a test for this to the Jenkins build.

//Peter

[RFC] mainboard.c: Unify name of device/board enable function

[Paul Menzel]

Am Freitag, den 22.02.2013, 02:17 +0100 schrieb Peter Stuge:
> Paul Menzel wrote:
> >     struct chip_operations mainboard_ops = {
> >     	.enable_dev = inagua_enable,
> >     };
> >
> > Naming this function is not uniform between the boards in the tree.
>
> Depending on how mainboard_ops is used in all the boards maybe we
> want to simply remove it completely.
> > If there are no objections to unification, what should the name for the
> > function be?
>
> Function names should try to be descriptive. "enable_dev" is not very
> descriptive. I like "mainboard_enable" because it makes output such
> as
>
> printk("%s: foo", __func__);
>
> useful.
> > Please comment on this, so a patch can be submitted.
>
> I'd +2 a commit which renames all to mainboard_enable.

http://review.coreboot.org/2493
> It would be very nice to also add a test for this to the Jenkins
> build.

Indeed.

Thanks,

Paul