From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751186AbdBANFr (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Feb 2017 08:05:47 -0500 Received: from mail-oi0-f46.google.com ([209.85.218.46]:36829 "EHLO mail-oi0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751153AbdBANFp (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Feb 2017 08:05:45 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170131204202.7b589ca6@bbrezillon> 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> From: Linus Walleij Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 14:05:43 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] gpio: Rename devm_get_gpiod_from_child() To: Boris Brezillon 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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... 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. 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. Yours, Linus Walleij