Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 9 Mar 2023 20:52:43 +0200 | From | Andy Shevchenko <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] gpiolib: Move gpiodevice_*() to gpiodev namespace |
| |
On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 11:49:53AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 7:25 PM Andy Shevchenko > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > > The functions that operates on the same device object would > > have the same namespace for better code understanding and > > maintenance.
...
> > -static void gpiodevice_release(struct device *dev) > > +static void gpiodev_release(struct device *dev) > > { > > struct gpio_device *gdev = to_gpio_device(dev); > > unsigned long flags; > > @@ -617,7 +617,7 @@ static int gpiochip_setup_dev(struct gpio_device *gdev) > > return ret; > > > > /* From this point, the .release() function cleans up gpio_device */ > > - gdev->dev.release = gpiodevice_release; > > + gdev->dev.release = gpiodev_release; > > > > ret = gpiochip_sysfs_register(gdev); > > if (ret)
> But the only other function that's in the gpiodev_ namespace operates > on struct gpio_device so that change doesn't make much sense to me.
I'm not sure I understood the comment. After this change we will have
static int gpiodev_add_to_list(struct gpio_device *gdev) static void gpiodev_release(struct device *dev)
There are also gpio_device_*() I have noticed, so may be these should be actually in that namespace?
And we have
static int gpiochip_setup_dev(struct gpio_device *gdev) static void gpiolib_dbg_show(struct seq_file *s, struct gpio_device *gdev)
That said, what do you think is the best to make this more consistent?
-- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
| |