Message-ID: <20200317210042.ryrof3amr7fxp4w5@pengutronix.de>
Date:   Tue, 17 Mar 2020 22:00:42 +0100
From:   Uwe Kleine-König 
        <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To:     Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
Cc:     Oleksandr Suvorov <oleksandr.suvorov@...adex.com>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org,
        Paul Barker <pbarker@...sulko.com>,
        Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
        Marcel Ziswiler <marcel.ziswiler@...adex.com>,
        Igor Opaniuk <igor.opaniuk@...adex.com>,
        Philippe Schenker <philippe.schenker@...adex.com>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
        Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@...rochip.com>,
        Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>,
        Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@...rochip.com>,
        Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>,
        NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@....com>,
        Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
        Ray Jui <rjui@...adcom.com>,
        Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
        Scott Branden <sbranden@...adcom.com>,
        Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
        Tony Prisk <linux@...sktech.co.nz>,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com,
        linux-amlogic@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/7] pwm: rename the PWM_POLARITY_INVERSED enum

Hello,

On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 06:40:43PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 02:32:25PM +0200, Oleksandr Suvorov wrote:
> > The polarity enum definition PWM_POLARITY_INVERSED is misspelled.
> > Rename it to PWM_POLARITY_INVERTED.
> 
> It isn't misspelled. "inversed" is a synonym for "inverted". Both
> spellings are correct.

Some time ago I stumbled about "inversed", too. My spell checker doesn't
know it and I checked some dictionaries and none of them knew that word:

https://www.lexico.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&filter=dictionary&dictionary=en&query=inversed
https://de.pons.com/%C3%BCbersetzung/englisch-deutsch/inversed
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/spellcheck/english-german/?q=inversed

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/inverse#Verb mentions "inverse" as a verb
having "inversed" as past participle.

Having said this I think (independent of the question if "inversed"
exists) using two similar terms for the same thing just results in
confusion. I hit that in the past already and I like it being addressed.

> And as you noted in the cover letter, there's a conflict between the
> macro defined in dt-bindings/pwm/pwm.txt. If they end up being included
> in the wrong order you'll get a compile error.

There are also other symbols that exist twice (GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH was the
first to come to my mind). I'm not aware of any problems related to
these. What am I missing?
 
> The enum was named this way on purpose to make it separate from the
> definition for the DT bindings.

Then please let's make it different by picking a different prefix or
something like that.

> Note that DT bindings are an ABI and can
> never change, whereas the enum pwm_polarity is part of a Linux internal
> API and doesn't have the same restrictions as an ABI.

I thought only binary device trees (dtb) are supposed to be ABI.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |

Powered by blists - more mailing lists