Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220826170716.6886-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
 <20220826170716.6886-4-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <5ba98dbd91dc981ec7384484b2a498805abef6b0.camel@perches.com>
 <CAHp75VfY5RgAju5ASvAp565oF6VmYYiuowNsPTGSm=+1iFJ98A@mail.gmail.com>
 <2e158f8dc433b6b78d47d209495bed678d92369a.camel@perches.com>
 <CAHp75Vc0NtYcuSUP106V54U6EBYsj3LMx2FDJT4_pfB3gAtpPQ@mail.gmail.com> <25705469f329005a4ff699d1f45a12dcb575adc0.camel@perches.com>
In-Reply-To: <25705469f329005a4ff699d1f45a12dcb575adc0.camel@perches.com>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 29 Aug 2022 10:59:07 +0300
Message-ID: <CAHp75VezJ41z7KUbJE5Fo-oO7W-+nD00A23Gnqmfp6eUL7VT6w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] pwm: sysfs: Utilize an array for polarity strings
To:     Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        "linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Uwe_Kleine=2DK=C3=B6nig?= 
        <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Aug 28, 2022 at 9:19 PM Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 2022-08-28 at 20:40 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 28, 2022 at 4:46 PM Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2022-08-28 at 09:40 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, August 28, 2022, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, 2022-08-26 at 20:07 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > > Code is smaller and looks nicer if we combine polarity strings
> > > > > > into an array.
> >
> > > > First of all, please remove unnecessary context when replying.
> > >
> > > I am _very_ aware of context.
> > > I specifically left the code in.
> > >
> > > > > It's less robust though as PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL and _INVERSED
> > > > > are now required to be 0 and 1.  As the only 2 values in
> > > > > an enum they are, but that's not really guaranteed unless
> > > > > you read the enum definition.
> > > >
> > > > So, what do you suggest here and in many other similar places (yes, ABI
> > > > implied) in the kernel?
> > >
> > > Leaving the code alone.
> >
> > It's good that PWM maintainers look at this differently.
>
> The enum is not userspace so it's not ABI.
>
> The PWM maintainers are free to do what they want but I
> prefer obviousness over compactness.

Why do you not start "fixing" other similar places in the kernel?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko