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 10:07:21 +0100 Message-ID: <20170131100721.22c2388d@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> <20170131090432.72a1b1b8@bbrezillon> <20170131084447.GD8311@dtor-ws> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail.free-electrons.com ([62.4.15.54]:44973 "EHLO mail.free-electrons.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750726AbdAaJHi (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Jan 2017 04:07:38 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20170131084447.GD8311@dtor-ws> Sender: linux-gpio-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-gpio@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 On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 00:44:47 -0800 Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 09:04:32AM +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > 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. > > OK, I did not know that that was Linus' request, my objection still > stands. > > > > > 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. > > OK, that sounds better. Actually, we already have > fwnode_get_named_gpiod(), unfortunately it does not do suffixes > permutations. There are also no users, except > devm_get_gpiod_from_child(). So I would: > > - rename fwnode_get_named_gpiod() -> static __fwnode_get_named_gpiod() > - made new fwnode_get_named_gpiod() that did suffix permutation and > called __fwnode_get_named_gpiod() (or pulled its implementation > inline) Sorry but I don't follow you. Why do you need __fwnode_get_named_gpiod(), and what is the suffix permutation you're mentioning here? > - renamed devm_get_gpiod_from_child() -> > devm_fwnode_get_named_gpiod(dev, fwnode, con_id) > and called fwnode_get_named_gpiod(). Okay. I'm fine with this name, let's see what Linus says. > > This would indeed match the pattern with other fwnode/property handling > APIs. > > Thanks. >