linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] arm64: dts: qcom: Use plural

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20221214203737.icoc6zan5edkhtcz@SoMainline.org>
Date:   Wed, 14 Dec 2022 21:37:37 +0100
From:   Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@...ainline.org>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc:     phone-devel@...r.kernel.org, ~postmarketos/upstreaming@...ts.sr.ht,
        AngeloGioacchino Del Regno 
        <angelogioacchino.delregno@...ainline.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...ainline.org>,
        Martin Botka <martin.botka@...ainline.org>,
        Jami Kettunen <jami.kettunen@...ainline.org>,
        Luca Weiss <luca@...tu.xyz>, Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] arm64: dts: qcom: Use plural _gpios node label for
 PMIC gpios

On 2022-12-11 21:07:47, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 10/12/2022 18:05, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> > [..]
> > Just like -state and -pins suffix, sometimes even the unnecessary
> > -pins-pins suffix?  To me that is the same kind of churn, and *it is
> 
> You compare now to node names. The node names have visible impact (name
> of devices in sysfs and in system), is affected by DT schema (is parsed)
> and should follow DT spec rules.
> 
> There is nothing like that about labels, therefore they do not have the
> same rules or importance.
> 
> I understand that consistency in labels might be good thing... but also
> it does not matter. The labels really do not matter, except the code
> readability. pmgpio or pmgpios is basically the same readable.

For me the latter is more readable, and not only catering to
userspace/sysfs but also to the developer reading/writing these DTs is a
good thing (where it doesn't affect userspace nor sysfs, like this
patch).

- Marijn