linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/13] gpiolib: add gpiods_set_array_value

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: <CAHp75VdjLWsQJ6CFGdSSEHR=e53h60LGfBcS0mYjeMjzUJuKJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2025 17:10:10 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc: David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org, linux-sound@...r.kernel.org, 
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>, 
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>, 
	Michael Hennerich <Michael.Hennerich@...log.com>, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>, 
	Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>, Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, 
	Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>, Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, 
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, 
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>, 
	Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...nel.org>, Nuno Sá <nuno.sa@...log.com>, 
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, 
	Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] gpiolib: add gpiods_set_array_value_cansleep

On Sat, Feb 1, 2025 at 12:36 PM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 21:24:40 +0100, David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com> said:
> > This series was inspired by some minor annoyance I have experienced a
> > few times in recent reviews.
> >
> > Calling gpiod_set_array_value_cansleep() can be quite verbose due to
> > having so many parameters. In most cases, we already have a struct
> > gpio_descs that contains the first 3 parameters so we end up with 3 (or
> > often even 6) pointer indirections at each call site. Also, people have
> > a tendency to want to hard-code the first argument instead of using
> > struct gpio_descs.ndescs, often without checking that ndescs >= the
> > hard-coded value.
> >
> > So I'm proposing that we add a gpiods_set_array_value_cansleep()
> > function that is a wrapper around gpiod_set_array_value_cansleep()
> > that has struct gpio_descs as the first parameter to make it a bit
> > easier to read the code and avoid the hard-coding temptation.
> >
> > I've just done gpiods_set_array_value_cansleep() for now since there
> > were over 10 callers of this one. There aren't as many callers of
> > the get and atomic variants, but we can add those too if this seems
> > like a useful thing to do.

> This looks good to me except for one thing: the function prefix. I would
> really appreciate it if we could stay within the existing gpiod_ namespace and
> not add a new one in the form of gpiods_.
>
> Maybe: gpiod_multiple_set_ or gpiod_collected_set...?

+1 here, i.e. I like the idea, but the naming needs to be amended.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko