From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751338AbdBANWo (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Feb 2017 08:22:44 -0500 Received: from mail.free-electrons.com ([62.4.15.54]:50868 "EHLO mail.free-electrons.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751126AbdBANWm (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Feb 2017 08:22:42 -0500 Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 14:22:28 +0100 From: Boris Brezillon To: Linus Walleij Cc: Dmitry Torokhov , Alexandre Courbot , "linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" , Linux Input , Bryan Wu , Richard Purdie , Jacek Anaszewski , "linux-leds@vger.kernel.org" , Tomi Valkeinen , "linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Russell King Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] gpio: Rename devm_get_gpiod_from_child() Message-ID: <20170201142228.053e2041@bbrezillon> In-Reply-To: References: <1485790909-2915-1-git-send-email-boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> <1485790909-2915-2-git-send-email-boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> <20170131010607.GC35974@dtor-ws> <20170131090432.72a1b1b8@bbrezillon> <20170131084447.GD8311@dtor-ws> <20170131100721.22c2388d@bbrezillon> <20170131091155.GH8311@dtor-ws> <20170131102424.7b68c0d4@bbrezillon> <20170131183936.GB13642@dtor-ws> <20170131204202.7b589ca6@bbrezillon> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.13.2 (GTK+ 2.24.30; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Linus, On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 14:05:43 +0100 Linus Walleij wrote: > On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 8:42 PM, Boris Brezillon > wrote: > > On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 10:39:36 -0800 > > Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > >> Hmm, yeah, I agree, that would be weird. Then let's leave > >> devm_get_gpiod_from_child() as is ;) > > > > Changing the internal implementation has never been the goal of this > > patch. As explained in the commit log, I'm just renaming the function > > to make it consistent with other fwnode functions (as suggested by > > Linus). > > What's happening here is exactly the kind of discussion I wanted to > > avoid, and the reason I decided to not change the > > devm_get_gpiod_from_child() prototype/name in the first place. > > > > Linus, is this something you really care about? If that's the case, can > > you step in? > > I can only throw up my hands... Sorry for forcing your hand like this, but this is the kind of discussion I'm not comfortable with (when I need to argue on something I'm not completely convinced of, or I don't have opinion on). > The way I percieved it, a new function > was added, but I guess it could be that the diffstat was so > convoluted in the other patch (by the way that diff sometimes give > very confusing stuff unless you use the right fuzz) so I misunderstood > some other renaming as introducing a new function. Indeed, a new function is added (see patch 2), and this new function is taking an additional 'index' parameter. If that's a problem, I can also change the prototype of devm_get_gpiod_from_child() and patch all existing users of this function, but I fear we'll end up with pretty much the same discussion :-/. > > Please drop the patch if it is controversial. > > The name of the function *is* confusing though but maybe it's not > the biggest problem in the world. I can still name the new function as you suggested (devm_fwnode_get_index_gpiod_from_child()), and keep the existing one unchanged if you want. Just let me know what you prefer. Thanks, Boris