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:   Tue, 31 Jan 2017 01:11:55 -0800
From:   Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To:     Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.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, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:07:21AM +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> 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(),

You do not need it, it will just reduce size of the patch if you use
it. I'd be perfectly fine not with having it and have everything in
fwnode_get_named_gpiod().

> and what is the suffix permutation you're
> mentioning here?

devm_get_gpiod_from_child() tries to apply "-gpio" and "-gpios" suffixes
to the supplied GPIO ID while current fwnode_get_named_gpiod() takes
property name literally.

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry