Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 31 Jan 2017 09:04:32 +0100 | From | Boris Brezillon <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] gpio: Rename devm_get_gpiod_from_child() |
| |
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 17:06:07 -0800 Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> 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
| |