From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3CB9C5ACAE for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 09:36:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA59520856 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 09:36:03 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b="HC4txyRj" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730632AbfILJgC (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Sep 2019 05:36:02 -0400 Received: from mail-lf1-f68.google.com ([209.85.167.68]:42920 "EHLO mail-lf1-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730083AbfILJgC (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Sep 2019 05:36:02 -0400 Received: by mail-lf1-f68.google.com with SMTP id c195so3897933lfg.9 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 02:36:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=kH4sFfjOL7A7KkMOV7vO4UQpyFz9162V/0NGhP2LeSw=; b=HC4txyRjxxz5UdDmhEgx85TIHyKxoHw2xFB4boVIniAuaYNptRdirmEVyOSmpxTlK/ l/CSZ+KB0+6Cx13rsE3aBhIo1L1jAy18I6BmPAE1dTZOiFapkH17OTjZY94KGQpT0l2E szQD3XSjOdIMpaeBS7iY/NEbdKAzIttZ6jytZNnmyPg4/7hsrAWqkWCnd0qKKbeVKOuZ CdgSX8i0IElZQwO5Si1vmsuLR7dM37KB6z5mQwmBus5iGvcWwoKd/oZWJi1X9qzl0cLC S4t9QBD+TrljIfpI/6ImwJmy0vevu/vCe2RKPG7THWx+8gxQsa/hYPUgVbxmn1ywXfzl t83Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=kH4sFfjOL7A7KkMOV7vO4UQpyFz9162V/0NGhP2LeSw=; b=VvPkNJV5j9POtpvOXyGRYIok2v3/WJohv7wCi40cxe4ag5NjaTFB3d98uoRkTTD9YA f2gePbU6t1JnGG1vFqw0gmb9mr5315dzrccSS8e2KOjyMyLt6PRkvjMDTgXqbxhoCylQ dI2WMI9UjkY2QVKkCw6NIVzp5hZ6vUEW6cFKlReBkRPuDEkktnOiY7LufmdNlfsJoERX FUJkyg06YoJXDu1dE2yScxOd9ofdjO5C2y9UZ+TRuP+11jtzmQBW1zFkx4/5s3B4zzKp duIxawDgLgBbmodrIDx9yqQaUlvYvX6ELpqEzFvXx5G8GRoalP/zo8qCnBc5yVIscFnp D1oQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVC8dAPCgv5D5BcEpLl2mrmOXxHdPSmtsN70Yev42pSCXUGyzs8 6ltWSu2gwExGpXbuR49Y+t/hVNr1STvIFD44At80yA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyxNtgIo21vnlXm6rIfHw5trKnnP33CLddtU3yZiyvg20eJ+KsBoi44dzHBWHnwNIT4/vtfRWOEHEBXKqSKQto= X-Received: by 2002:ac2:5c11:: with SMTP id r17mr27549722lfp.61.1568280960418; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 02:36:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190911075215.78047-1-dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> <20190911075215.78047-3-dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> <20190911170140.GS2680@smile.fi.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <20190911170140.GS2680@smile.fi.intel.com> From: Linus Walleij Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 10:35:49 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/11] gpiolib: introduce devm_fwnode_gpiod_get_index() To: Andy Shevchenko Cc: Dmitry Torokhov , Mika Westerberg , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" , Bartosz Golaszewski Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 6:01 PM Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 12:52:06AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > devm_fwnode_get_index_gpiod_from_child() is too long, besides the fwnode > > in question does not have to be a child of device node. Let's rename it > > to devm_fwnode_gpiod_get_index() and keep the old name for compatibility > > for now. > > > > Also let's add a devm_fwnode_gpiod_get() wrapper as majority of the > > callers need a single GPIO. > > > + return devm_fwnode_gpiod_get_index(dev, fwnode, con_id, 0, > > + flags, label); > > At least one parameter can fit previous line, but taking into consideration > that moving second one makes it 81 character long, I would do it completely on > one line. I don't remember Linus' preferences. I don't really have one, I don't mind 80+ chars, I don't mind breaking lines to avoid it. Yours, Linus Walleij