netdev - 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: <072be5a9-e0fb-4073-85b3-4a8efcafae09@baylibre.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2025 10:17:56 -0600
From: David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc: 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 2/1/25 10:14 AM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 1, 2025 at 5:09 PM David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 2/1/25 4:36 AM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>>>
>>> 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...?
>>>
>>> Bartosz
>>
>> I was waiting for someone to complain about the naming. ;-)
>>
>> I was going for as short as possible, but OK, the most obvious prefix to me
>> would be `gpio_descs_...` (to match the first parameter). Any objections to
>> that?
>>
> 
> Yes, objection! As far as any exported interfaces go: in my book
> "gpio_" is the prefix for legacy symbols we want to go away and
> "gpiod_" is the prefix for current, descriptor-based API. Anything
> else is a no-go. I prefer a longer name that starts with gpiod_ over
> anything that's shorter but doesn't.
> 
> Bartosz

Oops, that was a typo. I meant to write gpiod_descs_.