Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] gpiolib: Rename gpio_set_debounce_timeout() to gpiod_do_set_debounce()

Andy Shevchenko
2025-03-04T11:17:00Z

On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 01:11:57PM +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 12:59:25PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 11:18:04AM +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 06:00:33PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > In order to reduce the 'gpio' namespace when operate over GPIO descriptor
> > > > rename gpio_set_debounce_timeout() to gpiod_do_set_debounce().
> > >
> > > To me anything that has '_do_' in their name sounds like an internal static
> > > function that gets wrapped by the actual API function(s).
> > >
> > > For instance it could be
> > >
> > > int gpio_set_debounce_timeout()
> > > {
> > > ...
> > > gpiod_do_set_debounce()
> > > ...
> > >
> > > However, gpiod_set_debounce_timeout() or gpiod_set_debounce() sounds good
> > > to me.
> >
> > Then please propose the second name for gpiod_set_config_XXX to follow
> > the same pattern. The series unifies naming and reduces the current
> > inconsistency.

> gpiod_set_config()?

The problem is that

gpiod_set_debounce() and gpiod_set_config() are _existing_ public APIs.
That's why I considered "_do_" fitting the purpose.

--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko