Re: [PATCH v3] mfd: bcm590xx: Add support for interrupt handling

[Lee Jones]

On Sat, 24 Jan 2026, Artur Weber wrote:

> Sorry for the late reply to a 3-month-old review, but I missed this comment:
> 
> On 23.10.2025 15:03, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, 13 Oct 2025, Artur Weber wrote:
> > > +static bool bcm590xx_volatile_pri(struct device *dev, unsigned int reg)
> > 
> > If I've asked a question or showed uncertainty about something, it
> > usually means that changes need to be made.  Asking what "pri" meant
> > wasn't a one time thing.  It shows that something is not clear and if
> > I'm asking, others will wonder too.
> > 
> > Can we change 'sec' to 'secondary' and 'pri' to 'primary' please?
> 
> That function was named for consistency with the other uses of "pri" and
> "sec" in the code; this function is passed to a field in the struct
> "bcm590xx_regmap_config_pri".
> 
> (Admittedly, "bcm590xx_regmap_volatile_pri" would be a more accurate
> function name.)
> 
> I understand that the pri/sec naming could be confusing though. Should I
> update the entire driver to use primary/secondary instead, or just this
> one function? Or just the regmap_config?
> 
> The regmap_pri and regmap_sec names are also used in the bcm590xx struct
> which is passed to other drivers (currently only the regulator driver),
> changing those would also involve changing that driver, but that's fine
> by me.

My preference would be to elevate the ambiguity everywhere.

But it's not a demand.  Do what you think is best.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]