[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZYWDij-J1YruTIM7@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2023 14:39:38 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com>
Cc: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>,
linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] gpiolib: cdev: Split line_get_debounce_period()
and use
On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 09:12:37AM +0800, Kent Gibson wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 07:55:27PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > Instead of repeating the same code and reduce possible miss
> > of READ_ONCE(), split line_get_debounce_period() heler out
> > and use in the existing cases.
> >
>
> helper
>
> Not a fan of this change.
>
> So using READ_ONCE() is repeating code??
Yes. Because one may forget about it.
> Doesn't providing a wrapper around READ_ONCE() just rename that repitition?
> What of all the other uses of READ_ONCE() in cdev (and there are a lot) -
> why pick on debounce_period?
Because you have a setter, but getter. Inconsistency.
> The line_set_debounce_period() is necessary as the set is now a
> multi-step process as it can impact whether the line is contained
> in the supinfo_tree. The get is just a get.
>
> And you could've included me in the Cc so I didn't just find it by
> accident.
Maybe it's time to add you to the MAINTAINERS for this file as a designated
reviewer?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists