[flashrom] [PATCH] Shorten some board enable related function names

[Stefan Tauner]

On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 22:40:58 +0200
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net> wrote:

> Am 03.08.2011 13:40 schrieb Stefan Tauner:
> > On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 09:02:52 +0200
> > Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net> 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