Re: [PATCH 1/2] gpio: Rename devm_get_gpiod_from_child()

[Dmitry Torokhov]

On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 03:51:06PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Boris Brezillon
> <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 14:05:43 +0100
> > Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> >> > Linus, is this something you really care about? If that's the case, can
> >> > you step in?
> >>
> >> I can only throw up my hands...
> >
> > Sorry for forcing your hand like this, but this is the kind of
> > discussion I'm not comfortable with (when I need to argue on something
> > I'm not completely convinced of, or I don't have opinion on).
> 
> Sorry, I'm just too stressed by all patches. I now read back on the
> context below.
> 
> >> The way I percieved it, a new function
> >> was added, but I guess it could be that the diffstat was so
> >> convoluted in the other patch (by the way that diff sometimes give
> >> very confusing stuff unless you use the right fuzz) so I misunderstood
> >> some other renaming as introducing a new function.
> >
> > Indeed, a new function is added (see patch 2), and this new function is
> > taking an additional 'index' parameter. If that's a problem, I can also
> > change the prototype of devm_get_gpiod_from_child() and patch all
> > existing users of this function, but I fear we'll end up with pretty
> > much the same discussion :-/.
> 
> Yeah.
> 
> >> Please drop the patch if it is controversial.
> >>
> >> The name of the function *is* confusing though but maybe it's not
> >> the biggest problem in the world.
> >
> > I can still name the new function as you suggested
> > (devm_fwnode_get_index_gpiod_from_child()), and keep the existing one
> > unchanged if you want.
> 
> But that is just insane. Then it is just better to apply this and the
> other patch making the situation manageable.
> 
> This is a good time to do it too since I'm anyways patching around
> in all the consumers this merge window.
> 
> Dmitry: is this such a big deal to you?

No, not really. But sometimes it is soooo hard to pass on some
bikeshedding opportunity ;)

> 
> commit 40b7318319281b1bdec804f6435f26cadd329c13
> "gpio: Support for unified device properties interface"
> 
> by Mika Westerberg introduced
> 
> fwnode_get_named_gpiod()
> devm_get_gpiod_from_child()
> 
> Both are taking a fwnode as argument and the naming is as
> inconsistent as it can be.
> 
> Some more churn should be expected as a side
> effect of naming this function wrong in the first place.
> The fwnode API change was on fast-forward and mistakes
> were made, also by me, mea culpa.
> 
> When I write kernel code, I usually intuitively look for a function doing
> what I want, this naming is unintuitive, and it has confused me so
> it will confuse others.
> 
> Can I please apply these two patches?

You have my ack for the input bits.

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry