Message-ID: <330d5dd2-c382-4149-07b4-fec23d6611b1@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 21 Mar 2023 19:21:35 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.8.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] staging: greybus: use inline function for macros
Content-Language: en-US
To:     =?UTF-8?Q?Uwe_Kleine-K=c3=b6nig?= <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
Cc:     gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, outreachy@lists.linux.dev,
        johan@kernel.org, elder@kernel.org, vireshk@kernel.org,
        thierry.reding@gmail.com, greybus-dev@lists.linaro.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-staging@lists.linux.dev,
        linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@inria.fr>
References: <cover.1679352669.git.eng.mennamahmoud.mm@gmail.com>
 <1274302b52ae905dab6f75377d625598facbbdf1.1679352669.git.eng.mennamahmoud.mm@gmail.com>
 <20230321154728.3r7ut3rl2pccmo2e@pengutronix.de>
 <7c883bac-382c-b429-ab21-4675dce02474@gmail.com>
 <20230321164259.nt6varbc6v6bavrz@pengutronix.de>
From:   Menna Mahmoud <eng.mennamahmoud.mm@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230321164259.nt6varbc6v6bavrz@pengutronix.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk


On ٢١‏/٣‏/٢٠٢٣ ١٨:٤٢, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 06:25:29PM +0200, Menna Mahmoud wrote:
>> On ٢١‏/٣‏/٢٠٢٣ ١٧:٤٧, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> just some nitpicks:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 01:04:33AM +0200, Menna Mahmoud wrote:
>>>> Convert `to_gbphy_dev` and `to_gbphy_driver` macros into a
>>>> static inline function.
>>>>
>>>> it is not great to have macro that use `container_of` macro,
>>> s/it/It/; s/macro/macros/; s/use/use the/;
>> Okay, I will fix it.
>>>> because from looking at the definition one cannot tell what type
>>>> it applies to.
>>>> [...]
>>>> -#define to_gbphy_dev(d) container_of(d, struct gbphy_device, dev)
>>>> +static inline struct gbphy_device *to_gbphy_dev(const struct device *d)
>>> drivers/staging/greybus/gbphy.c always passes a variable named
>>> "dev" to this macro. So I'd call the parameter "dev", too, instead of
>>> "d". This is also a more typical name for variables of that type.
>>>
>>>> +{
>>>> +	return container_of(d, struct gbphy_device, dev);
>>>> +}
>>>> [...]
>>>>    };
>>>> -#define to_gbphy_driver(d) container_of(d, struct gbphy_driver, driver)
>>>> +static inline struct gbphy_driver *to_gbphy_driver(struct device_driver *d)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	return container_of(d, struct gbphy_driver, driver);
>>>> +}
>>> With a similar reasoning (and also to not have "d"s that are either
>>> device or device_driver) I'd recommend "drv" here.
>>
>> please check this with Julia, because she said they should different.
> At least use "_dev" instead of "d" which seems to be a common idiom,
> too:
>
> 	$ git grep -P 'container_of\(_(?<ident>[A-Za-z_0-9-]*)\s*,[^,]*,\s*\g{ident}\s*\)' | wc -l
> 	570
>
> ("drv" should be fine, because the third argument is "driver" there.)

Okay, I will do that.

Thanks,

Menna

>
> Best regards
> Uwe
>