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 14:22:28 +0100
From:   Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>
To:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc:     Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
        Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...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()

Hi Linus,

On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 14:05:43 +0100
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 8:42 PM, Boris Brezillon
> <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 10:39:36 -0800
> > Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com> 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...

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).

> 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 :-/.

> 
> 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.

Just let me know what you prefer.

Thanks,

Boris