linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] gpio: Rename devm_get_gpiod_from

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 1 Feb 2017 15:51:06 +0100
From:   Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:     Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>
Cc:     Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
        "linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Input <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>,
        Bryan Wu <cooloney@...il.com>,
        Richard Purdie <rpurdie@...ys.net>,
        Jacek Anaszewski <j.anaszewski@...sung.com>,
        "linux-leds@...r.kernel.org" <linux-leds@...r.kernel.org>,
        Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...com>,
        "linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] gpio: Rename devm_get_gpiod_from_child()

On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Boris Brezillon
<boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 14:05:43 +0100
> Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> wrote:

>> > 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).

Sorry, I'm just too stressed by all patches. I now read back on the
context below.

>> 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 :-/.

Yeah.

>> 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.

But that is just insane. Then it is just better to apply this and the
other patch making the situation manageable.

This is a good time to do it too since I'm anyways patching around
in all the consumers this merge window.

Dmitry: is this such a big deal to you?

commit 40b7318319281b1bdec804f6435f26cadd329c13
"gpio: Support for unified device properties interface"

by Mika Westerberg introduced

fwnode_get_named_gpiod()
devm_get_gpiod_from_child()

Both are taking a fwnode as argument and the naming is as
inconsistent as it can be.

Some more churn should be expected as a side
effect of naming this function wrong in the first place.
The fwnode API change was on fast-forward and mistakes
were made, also by me, mea culpa.

When I write kernel code, I usually intuitively look for a function doing
what I want, this naming is unintuitive, and it has confused me so
it will confuse others.

Can I please apply these two patches?

Yours,
Linus Walleij