From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.4 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FE5BC433B4 for ; Thu, 20 May 2021 08:33:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4033E6109F for ; Thu, 20 May 2021 08:33:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231185AbhETIfD (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 May 2021 04:35:03 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:39002 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229536AbhETIfA (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 May 2021 04:35:00 -0400 Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 97D7860FF1; Thu, 20 May 2021 08:33:39 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1621499619; bh=zC2Jqfc5np9GUFGI4yjQnL4CXojZ6bzom+Oi0SOtk6s=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=VaD2bxFUKLLJL8MZWeXdgd6q98EV/SNrK2Wqdz0NYQnUnk+uh/famzLtgHFS9cQlP btasDmMYDDxyotLe+oDzQxnX2WePQ6cgFGEgpF520zG6eT95zu6L3BJG8XAE1j4oe2 N6VcOg5ro1zaUaQ3N62R0KqvFVeHNj4mFdU02qC6pTav5LRdtAqNbkj2pZYU9nZBGk /SkTTieKeFKEMITBw7obSIsim32Pxace5CsHTE8+6NqzCl2g8a1x1iwqXZl2CMV7kU ebEbltxjM8HKMJBOI2q3FxHEZr1btdImy5txRDeIudK2r0pm5aaYwQ6gVeiidLIJuS XED+6/wBeYa/Q== Received: from johan by xi.lan with local (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1lje7e-0001vI-7G; Thu, 20 May 2021 10:33:38 +0200 Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 10:33:38 +0200 From: Johan Hovold To: Andy Shevchenko Cc: Andy Shevchenko , Bartosz Golaszewski , Kent Gibson , "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linus Walleij Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] gpiolib: Introduce for_each_gpio_desc_if() macro Message-ID: References: <20210518083339.23416-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 11:15:31AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 11:07 AM Johan Hovold wrote: > > On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 11:33:39AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > The _if suffix here is too vague. > > > > Please use a more descriptive name so that you don't need to look at the > > implementation to understand what the macro does. > > > > Perhaps call it > > > > for_each_gpio_desc_with_flag() > > Haha, I have the same in my internal tree, but then I have changed to > _if and here is why: > - the API is solely for internal use (note, internals of struct > gpio_desc available for the same set of users) That's not a valid argument here. You should never make code harder to read. There are other ways of marking functions as intended for internal use (e.g. do not export them and add a _ prefix or whatever). > - the current users do only same pattern That's not an argument against using a descriptive name. Possibly against adding a generic for_each_gpio_desc() macro. > - I don't expect that we will have this to be anything else in the future Again, irrelevant. Possibly an argument against adding another helper in the first place. > Thus, _if is a good balance between scope of use and naming. No, no, no. It's never a good idea to obfuscate code. > I prefer to leave it as is. I hope you'll reconsider, or that my arguments can convince the maintainers to step in here. > > or just add the more generic macro > > > > for_each_gpio_desc() > > > > and open-code the test so that it's clear what's going on here. FWIW, NAK due to the non-descriptive for_each_desc_if() name. Johan