[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZSbTXz6aEdMxG4Y/@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2023 19:54:55 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 31/62] pinctrl: remove pinctrl_gpio_request()
On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 02:07:59PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
>
> There are no more users of pinctrl_gpio_request() so remove it.
My question was and still is why can't we preserve most of the code?
It seems with changing a prototype to a new one and using a temporary variable
will reduce the diff noise quite a lot.
Another question is can we actually derive old functions from _new ones?
Like
foo_new(struct gpio_chip *gc, unsigned int offset)
{
...real implementation...
}
foo(unsigned gpio)
{
...something to get gpio chip and offset...
foo_new(gc, offset);
}
?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists