From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Boris Brezillon Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] gpio: Rename devm_get_gpiod_from_child() Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 09:04:32 +0100 Message-ID: <20170131090432.72a1b1b8@bbrezillon> References: <1485790909-2915-1-git-send-email-boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> <1485790909-2915-2-git-send-email-boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> <20170131010607.GC35974@dtor-ws> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20170131010607.GC35974@dtor-ws> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Dmitry Torokhov Cc: Linus Walleij , Alexandre Courbot , linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, linux-input@vger.kernel.org, Bryan Wu , Richard Purdie , Jacek Anaszewski , linux-leds@vger.kernel.org, Tomi Valkeinen , linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Russell King List-Id: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 17:06:07 -0800 Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 04:41:48PM +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > Rename devm_get_gpiod_from_child() into > > devm_fwnode_get_gpiod_from_child() to reflect the fact that this > > function is operating on a fwnode object. > > I believe this is completely pointless rename. Are you planning on > adding devm_of_get_gpiod_from_child()? Or > devm_acpt_get_gpiod_from_child()? (I sure hope not). Of course not. > > Also, on what object? Does it take fwnode as first argument? Or maybe we > should call it devm_dev_const_charp_fwnode_get_gpiod_from_child() so we > know types of all arguments? Linus suggested to rename this function [1]. I personally don't care much about the name, though I agree with Linus that names should be consistent and descriptive. Moreover, he's the maintainer, and I tend to follow maintainers suggestion when I contribute to a specific subsystem. IIUC, you're concerned about the length of this function name. If I had to drop something it would be the _from_child() suffix, because the function is not even checking that the child parameter is actually a direct child (or a descendant) of device->fwnode. Also, if we want to be consistent with the rest of the GPIO API, we could rename it devm_gpiod_get_from_fwnode() (with the function in added in patch 2 renamed into devm_gpiod_get_from_fwnode()). Linus, what do you think? One last thing, I don't want to start a discussion where we're bikeshedding on a function name instead of focusing on the functionality, so if it turns into this kind of discussion I'll probably implement devm_fwnode_get_gpiod_from_child() directly in the atmel NAND driver and wait for an agreement before switching to the official version. Regards, Boris [1]https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg558986.html