[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMRc=MdRdiEE=FND=a2Y1XZVqUadzdx+UNgc63Okio_ha4h6jQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2023 10:36:42 +0200
From: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] gpiolib: rename gpio_set_debounce_timeout() for consistency
On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 11:25 AM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 04, 2023 at 09:34:09AM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
> >
> > All other functions that manipulate a struct gpio_desc use the gpiod_
> > prefix. Follow this convention and rename gpio_set_debounce_timeout() to
> > gpiod_set_debounce_timeout().
>
> No, that's not true. This one is inline with the other gpio_set() _internal_
> APIs. If renamed, should be done consistently.
>
All the other ones are static to gpiolib.c. With static symbols the
naming convention is a bit more relaxed throughout the kernel. But I
do agree and I will get to them in time. :)
Bart
Powered by blists - more mailing lists