Re: [PATCH v4 07/20] gpiolib: cdev: support GPIO_V2_GET_LINE_IOCTL and GPIO_V2_LINE_GET_VALUES_IOCTL

[Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 09:21:22AM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 8:53 AM Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 09:31:29PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 5:04 AM Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Add support for requesting lines using the GPIO_V2_GET_LINE_IOCTL, and
> > > > returning their current values using GPIO_V2_LINE_GET_VALUES_IOCTL.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com>
> > > > ---
> > >
> > > Hi Kent,
> > >
> > > not many comments here, just a couple minor details below.
> > >
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > > +
> > > > +/**
> > > > + * struct line - contains the state of a userspace line request
> > > > + * @gdev: the GPIO device the line request pertains to
> > > > + * @label: consumer label used to tag descriptors
> > > > + * @num_descs: the number of descriptors held in the descs array
> > > > + * @descs: the GPIO descriptors held by this line request, with @num_descs
> > > > + * elements.
> > > > + */
> > > > +struct line {
> > >
> > > How about line_request, line_request_data or line_req_ctx? Something
> > > more intuitive than struct line that doesn't even refer to a single
> > > line. Same for relevant functions below.
> > >
> >
> > As I've mentioned previously, I'm not a fan of names that include _data,
> > _ctx, _state, or similar that don't really add anything.
> >
> 
> I certainly disagree with you on this. I think it's useful to discern
> the object itself from data associated with it. Let's consider struct
> irq_data and let's imagine it would be called struct irq instead. The
> latter would be misleading - as this struct contains a lot additional
> fields that form the context for the irq but aren't logically part of
> the "irq object". And then you have irq_common_data which is even more
> disconnected from the irq. This also would make using the name "irq"
> for the variables containing the global irq number confusing.
> 
> I think the same happens here: we may want to use the name "line" for
> local variables and then having "struct line_data" (or similar) would
> make it easier to read.
> 

My counter example to both points is "struct file *file".

> I'll listen to other's suggestions/voices but personally I think that
> _ctx, _data etc. suffixes actually make sense.
> 
> > I did consider line_request, but that was too close to the
> > gpio_v2_line_request in gpio.d, not just the struct but also the
> > resulting local variables, particularly in line_create() where they
> > co-exist.
> >
> > Given the ioctl names, GPIO_V2_GET_LINE_IOCTL and
> > GPIO_V2_LINE_GET/SET_xxx, that all create or operate on this struct, and
> > that this is within the scope of gpiolib-cdev, the name 'line' seemed the
> > best fit.
> >
> 
> And that's why line_data or line_request_data do make sense IMO.
> 
> > And how does it not refer to a single line - what are the descs??
> >
> 
> I meant the fact that it can refer to multiple lines while being
> called "struct line". I do find this misleading.
> 

And struct line_data isn't?

Cheers,
Kent.