[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250403123800.GK3152277@black.fi.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2025 15:38:00 +0300
From: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 4/5] gpiolib: acpi: Reuse struct acpi_gpio_params in
struct acpi_gpio_lookup
On Thu, Apr 03, 2025 at 02:04:04PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 03, 2025 at 01:35:06PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 02, 2025 at 03:21:19PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > Some of the contents of struct acpi_gpio_lookup repeats what we have
> > > in the struct acpi_gpio_params. Reuse the latter in the former.
>
> > > + struct acpi_gpio_params par;
> >
> > params is better name
>
> It's been already used elsewhere in the code. Do you want renaming there as
> well for consistency's sake?
If there is no problem confusing these then no need to rename anything
else.
>
> ...
>
> > > struct acpi_gpio_lookup *lookup = data;
> > > + struct acpi_gpio_params *par = &lookup->par;
> >
> > These are not changed I guess so can this be const?
>
> They are, see below. So the answer, it can't.
Okay then nevermind.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists