Re: [PATCH 00/13] gpiolib: add gpiods_set_array_value_cansleep

[David Lechner <dlechner@baylibre.com>]

On 2/1/25 1:47 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 1, 2025 at 6:22 PM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl> wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 1, 2025 at 5:17 PM David Lechner <dlechner@baylibre.com> wrote:
>>> On 2/1/25 10:14 AM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Feb 1, 2025 at 5:09 PM David Lechner <dlechner@baylibre.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 2/1/25 4:36 AM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
>>>>>> This looks good to me except for one thing: the function prefix. I would
>>>>>> really appreciate it if we could stay within the existing gpiod_ namespace and
>>>>>> not add a new one in the form of gpiods_.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe: gpiod_multiple_set_ or gpiod_collected_set...?
>>>>>
>>>>> I was waiting for someone to complain about the naming. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> I was going for as short as possible, but OK, the most obvious prefix to me
>>>>> would be `gpio_descs_...` (to match the first parameter). Any objections to
>>>>> that?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, objection! As far as any exported interfaces go: in my book
>>>> "gpio_" is the prefix for legacy symbols we want to go away and
>>>> "gpiod_" is the prefix for current, descriptor-based API. Anything
>>>> else is a no-go. I prefer a longer name that starts with gpiod_ over
>>>> anything that's shorter but doesn't.
>>>
>>> Oops, that was a typo. I meant to write gpiod_descs_.
>>
>> Eh... the D in gpioD already stands for "GPIO Descriptor" but if
>> there's no better option in your opinion than I guess I can live with
>> that.
> 
> gpiod_set_many_value_cansleep() ?
> 

OK, taking all these suggestions into consideration along with having recently
come across regmap_multi_reg_write(), I think I'll go with:

gpiod_multi_set_value_cansleep()