linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 1/6] gpiolib: Introduce a helper to get first GPIO controller node

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YnPOTTRhzM5O7OlD@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 5 May 2022 16:17:01 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc:     Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@...libre.com>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-amlogic <linux-amlogic@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>,
        Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@...libre.com>,
        Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Gregory Clement <gregory.clement@...tlin.com>,
        Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/6] gpiolib: Introduce a helper to get first GPIO
 controller node

On Thu, May 05, 2022 at 03:05:52PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 12:29 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 12:27 AM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 9:02 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > > <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:

...

> > > Any chance you could name it get_first_gpiochip_node()? It's static so
> > > we don't have to worry about the prefix and it would make the purpose
> > > more clear.
> >
> > There are two things why I prefer it as is:
> > 1) it's static inline, so it's part of (internal) but still exported API;
> > 2) it's already in my for-next branch which I would like not to
> > rebase, until it's a really serious issue.
> >
> > That said, if you still insist I can rename it.
> 
> No that's fine and I also pulled that into my tree.

Thank you!

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko