Re: [PATCH v14 5/5] reset: Leverage revocable for accessing struct reset_controller_dev

[Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@kernel.org>]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2026 at 04:05:21PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2026 14:41:47 +0200, Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de> said:
> > On Mo, 2026-10-19 at 11:53 +0000, Tzung-Bi Shih wrote:
> >> On Thu, Oct 15, 2026 at 05:49:11AM -0400, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> >> > >  /**
> >> > >   * struct reset_control - a reset control
> >> > > - * @rcdev: a pointer to the reset controller device
> >> > > - *         this reset control belongs to
> >> > > - * @srcu: protects the rcdev pointer from removal during consumer access
> >> > > + * @rev: revocable handle for accessing the reset controller device
> >> >
> >> > Please call it "revocable". The name "rev" does not indicate what it is at all.
> >> > Same elsewhere if you call it the same.
> >>
> >> Ack, I initially used "rev" to keep the lines shorter with the revocable
> >> APIs, but "rev" alone can indeed be confusing.  On the other hand, I feel
> >> "revocable" is a bit verbose and doesn't indicate which target object it
> >> protects.  How about calling it "rcdev_rev"?
> >
> > I strongly associate "rev" with "revision".
> >
> > I'd be fine with "rcdev_revocable" (in struct reset_control and
> > "revocable" in struct reset_controller_device).
> >
> 
> I think "revocable" in both cases is fine. After all: we know what type the
> dereferenced variable is.

Ack, will rename them to `rcdev_revocable` (in `struct reset_control`) and
`revocable` (in `struct reset_controller_dev`).