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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 09:04:32 +0100 From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com> To: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com> Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, 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, Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...com>, linux-fbdev@...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 Mon, 30 Jan 2017 17:06:07 -0800 Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 04:41:48PM +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > Rename devm_get_gpiod_from_child() into > > devm_fwnode_get_gpiod_from_child() to reflect the fact that this > > function is operating on a fwnode object. > > I believe this is completely pointless rename. Are you planning on > adding devm_of_get_gpiod_from_child()? Or > devm_acpt_get_gpiod_from_child()? (I sure hope not). Of course not. > > Also, on what object? Does it take fwnode as first argument? Or maybe we > should call it devm_dev_const_charp_fwnode_get_gpiod_from_child() so we > know types of all arguments? Linus suggested to rename this function [1]. I personally don't care much about the name, though I agree with Linus that names should be consistent and descriptive. Moreover, he's the maintainer, and I tend to follow maintainers suggestion when I contribute to a specific subsystem. IIUC, you're concerned about the length of this function name. If I had to drop something it would be the _from_child() suffix, because the function is not even checking that the child parameter is actually a direct child (or a descendant) of device->fwnode. Also, if we want to be consistent with the rest of the GPIO API, we could rename it devm_gpiod_get_from_fwnode() (with the function in added in patch 2 renamed into devm_gpiod_get_from_fwnode()). Linus, what do you think? One last thing, I don't want to start a discussion where we're bikeshedding on a function name instead of focusing on the functionality, so if it turns into this kind of discussion I'll probably implement devm_fwnode_get_gpiod_from_child() directly in the atmel NAND driver and wait for an agreement before switching to the official version. Regards, Boris [1]https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg558986.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists