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: <20220906211628.6u4hbpn4shjcvqel@pali> <Yxe7CJnIT5AiUilL@google.com>
 <20220906214114.vj3v32dzwxz6uqik@pali> <YxfBKkqce/IQQLk9@google.com>
 <20220906220901.p2c44we7i4c35uvx@pali> <YxfMkzW+5W3Hm1dU@google.com>
 <CACRpkdZh0BF1jjPB4FSTg12_=aOpK-kMiOFD+A8p5unr1+4+Ow@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMRc=MdrX5Pz1d-SM2PPikEYw0zJBe6GCdr4pEfgBLMi1J9PAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <YyKMsyI961Mo1EQE@sol> <CACRpkdYB6dZf4TBhfXB2Z5E2PJ46ctAM_QKLiW-fykbCopcVGQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <YyLwsOBXv9jRw/+n@sol>
In-Reply-To: <YyLwsOBXv9jRw/+n@sol>
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>
Date:   Fri, 16 Sep 2022 09:22:59 +0200
Message-ID: <CAMRc=MeF2uNmx_-mZikg=3nMV4aHK+bCUBEcLGEgJ6JY4jZ_Sg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] PCI: mvebu: switch to using gpiod API
To:     Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Pali_Roh=C3=A1r?= <pali@kernel.org>,
        Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Krzysztof_Wilczy=C5=84ski?= <kw@linux.com>,
        linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 11:30 AM Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 10:51:02AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 4:23 AM Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > After sleeping on this, I'm even more in disagreement with renaming
> > > value to state.
> >
> > OK let's not do that then.
> >
> > > OTOH, I totally agree with the addition of GPIOD_ACTIVE/INACTIVE to be
> > > used for the logical cases, and even a script to apply it globally.
> > > Ideally that script would change both the calls to the logical functions
> > > to use ACTIVE/INACTIVE, and the physical to HIGH/LOW.
> >
> > OK we have consensus on this.
> >
> > > Introducing enums for those, and changing the function signatures to
> > > use those rather than int makes sense to me too.
> >
> > Either they can be enum or defined to bool true/false. Not really
> > sure what is best. But intuitively enum "feels better" for me.
> >
>
> Enums work for me - especially if the goal is to differentiate
> logical from physical - there should be a distinct enum for each.
>

We won't even have to change the function signatures if we go with
enums - they already take an int and I'm in general against putting
enum types into function signatures in C as they give you a false
sense of a strong type.

Bart

> > > Though I'm not sure
> > > why that has to wait until after all users are changed to the new macros.
> > > Would that generate lint warnings?
> >
> > I rather want it all to happen at once. One preparatory commit
> > adding the new types and one sed script to refactor the whole
> > lot. Not gradual switchover.
> >
> > The reason is purely administrative: we have too many refactorings
> > lagging behind, mainly the GPIO descriptors that have been
> > lagging behind for what is it? 5 years? 10? GPIO irqchips also dragged
> > out for way too long. We can't keep doing things gradually like
> > this, it takes too much time and effort.
> >
> > I don't want any more "in-transition-indefinitely" stuff in the GPIO
> > subsystem if I can avoid it.
> >
> > Therefore I would advice to switch it all over at the end of a merge
> > window and be done with it.
> >
>
> Agreed - do it all at once.  My question was specific to the change of the
> function signatures to using enums - what is to prevent us doing that
> before running the sed script, and have the script switch usage over to
> the enums?
>
> Cheers,
> Kent.