[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2] drm/i915/guc: Update syntax of GuC log functions

[Michal Wajdeczko]

On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 18:20:18 +0100, Michal Wajdeczko  
<michal.wajdeczko at intel.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 17:56:01 +0100, Michał Winiarski  
> <michal.winiarski at intel.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 02:45:39PM +0000, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
>>> We moved GuC log related data and code to separate files and
>>> definition but we didn't change functions syntax to follow
>>> object-verb pattern. Let's fix that before we continue with
>>> next round of code refactoring.
>>>
>>> v2: rebased
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko at intel.com>
>>> Cc: Michal Winiarski <michal.winiarski at intel.com>
>>> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
>>> Reviewed-by: Michał Winiarski <michal.winiarski at intel.com>
>>
>> One more comment, since I just noticed this while rebasing my guc  
>> patches on
>> this rename.
>>
>> What about guc actions?
>> We now have guc_log_flush_complete, guc_log_flush and guc_log_control  
>> that are
>> using intel_guc rather than intel_guc_log.
>> Which is reasonable - because those don't touch guc->log, but it's also
>> inconsistent (I'm also adding guc_log_flush_irq_enable).
>>
>> If you want to follow object-verb pattern, you should either rename or  
>> pass
>> intel_guc_log and do the log_to_guc dance there.
>
> I was planning to rename them in next patch as follows:
>
> guc_log_flush_complete -> guc_send_flush_log_complete
> guc_log_flush          -> guc_send_flush_log
> guc_log_control        -> guc_send_control_log

or (to match naming used in intel_guc_ct.c)

guc_log_flush_complete -> guc_action_flush_log_complete
guc_log_flush          -> guc_action_flush_log
guc_log_control        -> guc_action_control_log

or maybe other ideas ?