From: Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Cc: "Bartosz Golaszewski" <brgl@bgdev.pl>,
"Dmitry Torokhov" <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>,
"Pali Rohár" <pali@kernel.org>,
"Shawn Guo" <shawn.guo@linaro.org>,
"Lorenzo Pieralisi" <lpieralisi@kernel.org>,
"Thomas Petazzoni" <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>,
"Bjorn Helgaas" <bhelgaas@google.com>,
"Rob Herring" <robh@kernel.org>,
"Krzysztof Wilczyński" <kw@linux.com>,
linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] PCI: mvebu: switch to using gpiod API
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2022 17:30:24 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YyLwsOBXv9jRw/+n@sol> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACRpkdYB6dZf4TBhfXB2Z5E2PJ46ctAM_QKLiW-fykbCopcVGQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 10:51:02AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 4:23 AM Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > After sleeping on this, I'm even more in disagreement with renaming
> > value to state.
>
> OK let's not do that then.
>
> > OTOH, I totally agree with the addition of GPIOD_ACTIVE/INACTIVE to be
> > used for the logical cases, and even a script to apply it globally.
> > Ideally that script would change both the calls to the logical functions
> > to use ACTIVE/INACTIVE, and the physical to HIGH/LOW.
>
> OK we have consensus on this.
>
> > Introducing enums for those, and changing the function signatures to
> > use those rather than int makes sense to me too.
>
> Either they can be enum or defined to bool true/false. Not really
> sure what is best. But intuitively enum "feels better" for me.
>
Enums work for me - especially if the goal is to differentiate
logical from physical - there should be a distinct enum for each.
> > Though I'm not sure
> > why that has to wait until after all users are changed to the new macros.
> > Would that generate lint warnings?
>
> I rather want it all to happen at once. One preparatory commit
> adding the new types and one sed script to refactor the whole
> lot. Not gradual switchover.
>
> The reason is purely administrative: we have too many refactorings
> lagging behind, mainly the GPIO descriptors that have been
> lagging behind for what is it? 5 years? 10? GPIO irqchips also dragged
> out for way too long. We can't keep doing things gradually like
> this, it takes too much time and effort.
>
> I don't want any more "in-transition-indefinitely" stuff in the GPIO
> subsystem if I can avoid it.
>
> Therefore I would advice to switch it all over at the end of a merge
> window and be done with it.
>
Agreed - do it all at once. My question was specific to the change of the
function signatures to using enums - what is to prevent us doing that
before running the sed script, and have the script switch usage over to
the enums?
Cheers,
Kent.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-09-15 9:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-09-06 20:43 [PATCH 1/2] PCI: histb: switch to using gpiod API Dmitry Torokhov
2022-09-06 20:43 ` [PATCH 2/2] PCI: mvebu: " Dmitry Torokhov
2022-09-06 21:16 ` Pali Rohár
2022-09-06 21:26 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2022-09-06 21:40 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2022-09-06 21:42 ` Pali Rohár
2022-09-06 21:41 ` Pali Rohár
2022-09-06 21:52 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2022-09-06 22:09 ` Pali Rohár
2022-09-06 22:41 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2022-09-11 12:58 ` Pali Rohár
2022-09-14 10:35 ` Linus Walleij
2022-09-14 12:10 ` Bartosz Golaszewski
2022-09-14 12:48 ` Linus Walleij
2022-09-14 13:00 ` Kent Gibson
2022-09-14 13:36 ` Linus Walleij
2022-09-15 2:23 ` Kent Gibson
2022-09-15 8:51 ` Linus Walleij
2022-09-15 9:30 ` Kent Gibson [this message]
2022-09-16 7:22 ` Bartosz Golaszewski
2022-09-18 14:37 ` Linus Walleij
2022-09-18 23:58 ` Kent Gibson
2022-09-08 8:42 ` Linus Walleij
2022-09-07 4:11 ` kernel test robot
2022-09-09 20:10 ` kernel test robot
2022-09-06 21:08 ` [PATCH 1/2] PCI: histb: " Pali Rohár
2022-09-06 21:41 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2022-09-06 21:46 ` Pali Rohár
2022-09-08 8:37 ` Linus Walleij
2022-11-11 15:01 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2022-11-11 15:20 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2022-11-14 10:58 ` (subset) " Lorenzo Pieralisi
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=YyLwsOBXv9jRw/+n@sol \
--to=warthog618@gmail.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=brgl@bgdev.pl \
--cc=dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com \
--cc=kw@linux.com \
--cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lpieralisi@kernel.org \
--cc=pali@kernel.org \
--cc=robh@kernel.org \
--cc=shawn.guo@linaro.org \
--cc=thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox