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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Tue, 31 Jan 2017 10:07:21 +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 Tue, 31 Jan 2017 00:44:47 -0800
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 09:04:32AM +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > 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.  
> 
> OK, I did not know that that was Linus' request, my objection still
> stands.
> 
> > 
> > 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.  
> 
> OK, that sounds better. Actually, we already have
> fwnode_get_named_gpiod(), unfortunately it does not do suffixes
> permutations. There are also no users, except
> devm_get_gpiod_from_child(). So I would:
> 
> - rename fwnode_get_named_gpiod() -> static __fwnode_get_named_gpiod()
> - made new fwnode_get_named_gpiod() that did suffix permutation and
>   called __fwnode_get_named_gpiod() (or pulled its implementation
>   inline)

Sorry but I don't follow you. Why do you need
__fwnode_get_named_gpiod(), and what is the suffix permutation you're
mentioning here?

> - renamed devm_get_gpiod_from_child() ->
>   devm_fwnode_get_named_gpiod(dev, fwnode, con_id)
>   and called fwnode_get_named_gpiod().

Okay. I'm fine with this name, let's see what Linus says.

> 
> This would indeed match the pattern with other fwnode/property handling
> APIs.
> 
> Thanks.
>