[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMRc=McJjcOo2_xcU0CgoQMO9PJH3t_dWeSyS8QX3wYaxeufhA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2022 09:41:36 +0200
From: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
To: Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
"open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: sim: fix the chip_name configfs item
On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 4:37 AM Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 07:34:18PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > The chip_name configs attribute always displays the device name of the
> > first GPIO bank because the logic of the relevant function is simply
> > wrong.
> >
> > Fix it by correctly comparing the bank's swnode against the GPIO
> > device's children.
> >
>
> That works for me, so thanks for that.
>
> Not totally convinced by Andy's suggestion to rename swnode to fwnode.
> Variables should be named for what they represent, not their type, and
> you use swnode extensively elsewhere in the module, so either change it
> everywhere or not at all, and such a sweeping change is beyond the scope
> this patch.
>
> Though it may make his other suggestion to use device_match_fwnode()
> read a little better. No issue with that suggestion.
>
> Cheers,
> Kent.
I agree on device_match_fwnode() and disagree on the swnode rename. v2 sent out.
Bart
Powered by blists - more mailing lists