Re: [PATCH 1/3] i2c: convert SMBus alert setup function to return an ERRPTR

[Luca Ceresoli]

Hi,

On 17/02/20 09:17, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> 
>>> Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>>> -struct i2c_client *i2c_setup_smbus_alert(struct i2c_adapter *adapter,
>>> +struct i2c_client *i2c_install_smbus_alert(struct i2c_adapter *adapter,
>>>  					 struct i2c_smbus_alert_setup *setup);
>>
>> This function naming is a bit odd. It creates a struct i2c_client.
>> Then, there is also i2c_new_client_device() and i2c_new_device(). For
>> i2c_new_client_device() there are no users at all outside of
>> i2c-core-base.c (except for Falcon NIC), it is only a wrapper.
> 
> i2c_new_device (and friends) returned NULL on error. I am currently
> converting all i2c_new_* functions to return an ERRPTR. So,
> i2c_new_client_device is the new function, i2c_new_device is deprecated.
> If you check v5.6-rc1, you will find many more users. Similarily,
> i2c_new_dummy is deprecated (and removed already), i2c_new_dummy_device
> is the new thing.
> 
>> So how about reducing the interface to those both only to:?
>>
>>  i2c_new_device()
>>  i2c_new_device_smbus()
> 
> Given the above, it would be:
> 
> 	i2c_new_client_device()
> 	i2c_new_smbus_device()
> 
> Yet, I think this is too vague. Maybe
> 
> 	i2c_new_smbus_alert_device()

I always found the function naming a bit messy in the linux i2c
implementation. Among the names proposed in this thread,
i2c_new_smbus_alert_device() is the only one that makes sense to me for
the new function: it is not vague, and it is coherent with other names
of recently introduced functions (i2c_new_*_device()). Of course the
"alert device" is not a real device, but it looks like it is as it has
its own "slave" address. So I vote for this name...

> ? Note that I never used SMBus Alert, so I am happy for feedback from
> people actually using it.

...but that said, I'm afraid I'm not using smbus alert.

My 2c,
-- 
Luca