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

[Michał Winiarski]

On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 06:53:23PM +0100, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
> 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 ?

I don't mind having it in a follow-up patch.
I'd pick guc_action_*, but both schemes sound good so it's up to you.

-Michał