Re: [RFC PATCH 1/7] pwm: rename the PWM_POLARITY_INVERSED enum

From: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>
To: Oleksandr Suvorov <oleksandr.suvorov@toradex.com>
Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org,
	"Paul Barker" <pbarker@konsulko.com>,
	"Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>,
	"Laurent Pinchart" <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>,
	"Marcel Ziswiler" <marcel.ziswiler@toradex.com>,
	"Igor Opaniuk" <igor.opaniuk@toradex.com>,
	"Philippe Schenker" <philippe.schenker@toradex.com>,
	"Alexandre Belloni" <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>,
	"Chen-Yu Tsai" <wens@csie.org>,
	"Claudiu Beznea" <claudiu.beznea@microchip.com>,
	"Fabio Estevam" <festevam@gmail.com>,
	"Florian Fainelli" <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
	"Heiko Stuebner" <heiko@sntech.de>,
	"Kevin Hilman" <khilman@baylibre.com>,
	"Ludovic Desroches" <ludovic.desroches@microchip.com>,
	"Maxime Ripard" <mripard@kernel.org>,
	"NXP Linux Team" <linux-imx@nxp.com>,
	"Nicolas Ferre" <nicolas.ferre@microchip.com>,
	"Palmer Dabbelt" <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
	"Paul Cercueil" <paul@crapouillou.net>,
	"Paul Walmsley" <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
	"Pengutronix Kernel Team" <kernel@pengutronix.de>,
	"Ray Jui" <rjui@broadcom.com>,
	"Sascha Hauer" <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>,
	"Scott Branden" <sbranden@broadcom.com>,
	"Shawn Guo" <shawnguo@kernel.org>,
	"Tony Prisk" <linux@prisktech.co.nz>,
	bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com,
	linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/7] pwm: rename the PWM_POLARITY_INVERSED enum
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2020 18:40:43 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200317174043.GA1464607@ulmo> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200317123231.2843297-2-oleksandr.suvorov@toradex.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 877 bytes --]

On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 02:32:25PM +0200, Oleksandr Suvorov wrote:
> The polarity enum definition PWM_POLARITY_INVERSED is misspelled.
> Rename it to PWM_POLARITY_INVERTED.

It isn't misspelled. "inversed" is a synonym for "inverted". Both
spellings are correct.

And as you noted in the cover letter, there's a conflict between the
macro defined in dt-bindings/pwm/pwm.txt. If they end up being included
in the wrong order you'll get a compile error.

The enum was named this way on purpose to make it separate from the
definition for the DT bindings. Note that DT bindings are an ABI and can
never change, whereas the enum pwm_polarity is part of a Linux internal
API and doesn't have the same restrictions as an ABI.

As far as I'm concerned this is completely unnecessary churn that's
potentially going to come back and bite us, so I see no reason to accept
this.

Thierry

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]