Re: [PATCH 0/6] Improve consistency of bus init function names

[Peter Maydell]

On Thu, 23 Sept 2021 at 13:11, Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> Currently we have a bit of a mishmash of different function
> names for bus creation. There are two basic patterns: you
> can have a function that allocates and returns a new bus
> object; or you can have a function that takes a pointer to
> a bus object and initializes it in-place. We have to some
> extent a convention for those: the allocate-and-return
> function is 'foo_new()', and the 'init in-place' function
> is 'foo_init()'. However many of our bus creation functions
> don't follow that; some use 'foo_new' vs 'foo_new_inplace';
> some use 'foo_new' for the in-place init version; and
> the bottom level qbus functions are 'qbus_create' vs
> 'qbus_create_inplace'. This series tries to bring at least
> scsi, ipack, pci, ide, and qbus into line with the
> _new-vs-_init naming convention.

Thanks all for the reviews/acks. I'm going to take this via
target-arm.next.

-- PMM