[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z8bdDQGg_xcamZv2@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2025 12:59:25 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>,
linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Mika Westerberg <westeri@...nel.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] gpiolib: Rename gpio_set_debounce_timeout() to
gpiod_do_set_debounce()
On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 11:18:04AM +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 06:00:33PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > In order to reduce the 'gpio' namespace when operate over GPIO descriptor
> > rename gpio_set_debounce_timeout() to gpiod_do_set_debounce().
>
> To me anything that has '_do_' in their name sounds like an internal static
> function that gets wrapped by the actual API function(s).
>
> For instance it could be
>
> int gpio_set_debounce_timeout()
> {
> ...
> gpiod_do_set_debounce()
> ...
>
> However, gpiod_set_debounce_timeout() or gpiod_set_debounce() sounds good
> to me.
Then please propose the second name for gpiod_set_config_XXX to follow
the same pattern. The series unifies naming and reduces the current
inconsistency.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists