[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9cb3fe58-de4c-4481-a36f-673d85dc0ecd@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2025 10:54:09 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@...dia.com>
Cc: Daniel Almeida <daniel.almeida@...labora.com>,
Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>,
Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>,
Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>,
Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>,
Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>,
Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>,
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...labora.com>,
Sebastian Reichel <sebastian.reichel@...labora.com>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] rust: regulator: add a bare minimum regulator
abstraction
On Sun, May 18, 2025 at 09:49:00PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> What things that are possible with the C API do you think should *not*
> ever be done? That's typically around these kind of restrictions that
> Rust abstractions should be designed, so you cannot end up in any
> undesired state no matter what sequence of methods you call.
There's nothing that should *never* be used, but there's a bunch of
things like _is_enabled() and _get_optional() where the uses are
specialist and people are far too enthusiastic about using them.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists