Re: [PATCH v6 3/3] pinctrl: Add Xilinx ZynqMP pinctrl driver support

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 12:59 PM Michal Simek <michal.simek@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 4/27/21 10:39 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 10:38 AM Michal Simek <michal.simek@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On 4/27/21 9:31 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 10:23 AM Michal Simek <michal.simek@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>> On 4/26/21 4:04 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 4:20 PM Sai Krishna Potthuri
> >>>>> <lakshmis@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>> From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>> Sent: Friday, April 23, 2021 9:24 PM
> >>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 11:31 AM Sai Krishna Potthuri
> >>>>>>> <lakshmi.sai.krishna.potthuri@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> >>>>>>>> +       help
> >>>>>>>> +         This selects the pinctrl driver for Xilinx ZynqMP platform.
> >>>>>>>> +         This driver will query the pin information from the firmware
> >>>>>>>> +         and allow configuring the pins.
> >>>>>>>> +         Configuration can include the mux function to select on those
> >>>>>>>> +         pin(s)/group(s), and various pin configuration parameters
> >>>>>>>> +         such as pull-up, slew rate, etc.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Missed module name.
> >>>>>> Is this (module name) a configuration option in Kconfig?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It's a text in a free form that sheds light on how the module will be
> >>>>> named in case the user will choose "m".
> >>>>
> >>>> Is this described somewhere in documentation that module name should be
> >>>> the part of symbol description? I was looking at pinctrl Kconfig and I
> >>>> can't see any description like this there that's why I want to double
> >>>> check.
> >>>
> >>> I dunno if it is described, the group of maintainers require that for some time.
> >>> I personally found this as a good practice.
> >>
> >> I don't think it is a big deal to add it but it is a question if this
> >> information is useful because module names should correspond target in
> >> Makefile which can be considered as additional information.
> >
> > For you as a *developer* — yes, for me as a *user* — no. You are
> > telling me something like "hey, if you want to know more you must dig
> > into kernel sources". No, this is not how we should treat users,
> > should we?
>
> As I said it is not big deal but we should care about consistency on
> this. Adding Joe here if we can extend checkpatch to report a warning
> about it. Then it will be visible and can be checked.

> >>>> Also if this is a rule checkpatch should be extended to checking this.
> >>>
> >>> There was a discussion at some point to add a check that help
> >>> description shouldn't be less than 3 lines. Not sure what the outcome
> >>> of it.
> >>
> >> This check is likely there because I have definitely seen these messages
> >> coming but never seen any name checking.
> >
> > Yeah, it was about insisting developers to be more verbose in the help
> > descriptions, but the name is, as I said, an activity "de facto"
> > rather than "de jure". Just look around for the latest new driver
> > contributions (I follow IIO, I2C, SPI, GPIO, pin control) for how they
> > provide their help descriptions (I admit that not everybody follows
> > that practice).
>
> I have seen some on linux-next but really when any rule/recommendation
> like this is introduced it should be more visible and checked by
> standard tools (checkpatch or by bots) then people will start to do it.

I agree on this.


-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko