Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210304102452.21726-1-brgl@bgdev.pl> <20210304102452.21726-10-brgl@bgdev.pl>
 <YEDdbfbM9abHJpIO@smile.fi.intel.com> <CAMRc=MdRxXzoZuyLs-24dXfOft=OQqDneTHa4-ZKqFE1kMBWcg@mail.gmail.com>
 <YEIE1nG8lZ4V2MXq@smile.fi.intel.com> <CAMRc=MekGnK17rYf3Bx_UHumVVrpmJphOnMfO352NB9SaOJCGw@mail.gmail.com>
 <YEY9DFk6NEcnEWGE@smile.fi.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <YEY9DFk6NEcnEWGE@smile.fi.intel.com>
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>
Date:   Mon, 8 Mar 2021 16:13:33 +0100
Message-ID: <CAMpxmJVTUfveuaY9yhP5PLXoOdrkYQ2WbE5-P+4XRi3=VdQKjg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 09/12] gpio: sim: new testing module
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>,
        Joel Becker <jlbec@evilplan.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Uwe_Kleine=2DK=C3=B6nig?= 
        <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
        Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-doc <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 4:05 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2021 at 03:23:31PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 11:15 AM Andy Shevchenko
> > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 09:15:29PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 2:15 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > > > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 11:24:49AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > > > > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>
>
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +     /*
> > > > > > +      * FIXME If anyone knows a better way to parse that - please let me
> > > > > > +      * know.
> > > > > > +      */
> > > > >
> > > > > If comma can be replaced with ' ' (space) then why not to use next_arg() from
> > > > > cmdline.c? I.o.w. do you have strong opinion why should we use comma here?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > My opinion is not very strong but I wanted to make the list of names
> > > > resemble what we pass to the gpio-line-names property in device tree.
> > > > Doesn't next_arg() react differently to string of the form: "foo=bar"?
> > >
> > > It's ambiguous here.
> > >
> > > So, the strings '"foo=bar"' and 'foo=bar' (w/o single quotes!) are indeed
> > > parsed differently, i.e.
> > >         '"foo=bar"' -> 'foo=bar',
> > > while
> > >         "foo=bar" -> 'foo' + 'bar'.
> > >
> >
> > IMO '"foo", "bar", "", "foobar"' looks better than '"foo" "bar" ""
> > "foobar"' and I'm also not sure next_arg will understand an empty
> > quote?
>
> I guess it understands it. But I agree that comma-separated it would look
> better.
>
> > If you're not objecting strongly, then I would prefer my version.
>
> I have strong opinion not to open code "yet another parser".
>
> So, grepping on 'strsep(.*, ",")' shows a lot of code that wants something like
> this. Interesting are the net/9p cases. This in particular pointed out to
> lib/parser.c which in turn shows promising match_strlcpy() / match_strdup(). I
> haven't looked deeply though.
>
> That said, I agree that next_arg() is not the best here.
>
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
>
>

Shall we revisit this once it's upstream with a generalization for
separating comma separated strings?

Bart