qapi: allow override of default enum prefix naming

The camel_to_upper() method applies some heuristics to turn
a mixed case type name into an all-uppercase name. This is
used for example, to generate enum constant name prefixes.

The heuristics don't also generate a satisfactory name
though. eg

  { 'enum': 'QCryptoTLSCredsEndpoint',
    'data': ['client', 'server']}

Results in Q_CRYPTOTLS_CREDS_ENDPOINT_CLIENT. This has
an undesirable _ after the initial Q and is missing an
_ between the CRYPTO & TLS strings.

Rather than try to add more and more heuristics to try
to cope with this, simply allow the QAPI schema to
specify the desired enum constant prefix explicitly.

eg

  { 'enum': 'QCryptoTLSCredsEndpoint',
    'prefix': 'QCRYPTO_TLS_CREDS_ENDPOINT',
    'data': ['client', 'server']}

Now gives the QCRYPTO_TLS_CREDS_ENDPOINT_CLIENT name.

Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrange <berrange@redhat.com>

docs/qapi-code-gen.txt

@@ -236,6 +236,7 @@ both fields like this:
 === Enumeration types ===
 
 Usage: { 'enum': STRING, 'data': ARRAY-OF-STRING }
+       { 'enum': STRING, '*prefix': STRING, 'data': ARRAY-OF-STRING }
 
 An enumeration type is a dictionary containing a single 'data' key
 whose value is a list of strings.  An example enumeration is:
@@ -247,6 +248,13 @@ useful.  The list of strings should be lower case; if an enum name
 represents multiple words, use '-' between words.  The string 'max' is
 not allowed as an enum value, and values should not be repeated.
 
+The enum constants will be named by using a heuristic to turn the
+type name into a set of underscore separated words. For the example
+above, 'MyEnum' will turn into 'MY_ENUM' giving a constant name
+of 'MY_ENUM_VALUE1' for the first value. If the default heuristic
+does not result in a desirable name, the optional 'prefix' field
+can be used when defining the enum.
+
 The enumeration values are passed as strings over the Client JSON
 Protocol, but are encoded as C enum integral values in generated code.
 While the C code starts numbering at 0, it is better to use explicit