[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdYhWk1dHeDHOf+6LM8gZ5Oh--6mpeeA7wskDFYZ-2cmJw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 22:51:14 +0100
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc: linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] gpio: provide for_each_gpio()
Hi Bartosz,
On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 9:33 AM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl> wrote:
> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
>
> We only provide iterators for requested GPIOs to provider drivers. In
> order to allow them to display debug information about all GPIOs, let's
> provide a variant for iterating over all GPIOs.
>
> Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
(...)
> +/**
> + * for_each_gpio - Iterates over all GPIOs for given chip.
Does this really intuitively fit with other functions named for_each_XXX()?
> + * @_chip: Chip to iterate over.
> + * @_i: Loop counter.
> + * @_label: Place to store the address of the label if the GPIO is requested.
> + * Set to NULL for unused GPIOs.
> + */
> +#define for_each_gpio(_chip, _i, _label) \
> + for (CLASS(_gpiochip_for_each_data, _data)(&_label, &_i); \
> + *_data.i < _chip->ngpio; \
> + (*_data.i)++, kfree(*(_data.label)), *_data.label = NULL) \
> + if (IS_ERR(*_data.label = \
> + gpiochip_dup_line_label(_chip, *_data.i))) {} \
> + else
I would call it for_each_line_label() or something. I try to avoid using
"gpio" in function names as well because of ambiguity, I could also go
with for_each_hwgpio_label() I suppose.
With some more reasonable name:
Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Yours,
Linus Walleij
Powered by blists - more mailing lists