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;
Message-ID: <0cf870f1-8cdb-df74-79d6-a4004cdfcc2f@baylibre.com>
Date:   Tue, 23 May 2023 11:09:51 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.11.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] gpio: tps65219: add GPIO support for TPS65219 PMIC
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Cc:     Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>, Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-omap@vger.kernel.org,
        Jonathan Cormier <jcormier@criticallink.com>
References: <20230511-tps65219-add-gpio-support-v2-0-60feb64d649a@baylibre.com>
 <20230511-tps65219-add-gpio-support-v2-1-60feb64d649a@baylibre.com>
 <CAMRc=Md-CzrG3QPtnh0OxYaHTAYZ2aUfMKhkAOeRm2Zn30qE0A@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZGiWdQcR6Zq6Aw65@surfacebook>
 <9fa1a6e8-368a-3e22-aa84-8cad09f72a32@baylibre.com>
 <CAHp75Vf0hW6sMXeGSVXRVoW1mxFufWmbJNzt7_10xPj_k5SNkA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   jerome Neanne <jneanne@baylibre.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHp75Vf0hW6sMXeGSVXRVoW1mxFufWmbJNzt7_10xPj_k5SNkA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk


On 22/05/2023 13:18, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 10:47 AM jerome Neanne <jneanne@baylibre.com> wrote:
>> On 20/05/2023 11:44, andy.shevchenko@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Mon, May 15, 2023 at 05:36:46PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski kirjoitti:
>>>> On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 4:09 PM Jerome Neanne <jneanne@baylibre.com> wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
>>>>> +       gpio->gpio_chip = tps65219_gpio_chip;
>>>>
>>>> Aren't you getting any warnings here about dropping the 'const' from
>>>> the global structure?
>>>
>>> But this is a copy of the contents and not the simple pointer.
> 
> I commented on Bart's question.
> 
>> In many other places where this is done, the struct is declared like:
>>
>> static const struct gpio_chip template_chip = {
>>
>> After internal review, I changed this to:
>>
>> static const struct gpio_chip tps65219_gpio_chip = {
>>
>> This is because I didn't want to have this "template" that sounds to me
>> like "dummy". Maybe I misunderstood and this "template" was used on
>> purpose because this const struct is just copied once to initialize
>> tps65219_gpio->gpio_chip during probe.
>>
>> Introducing tps65219_gpio_chip name is maybe confusing with
>> tps65219_gpio struct.
>>
>> I think the const should not be a problem here but the naming I used
>> might be misleading. If you have a suggestion of what is a good practice
>> to make this piece of code clearer. I'll follow your suggestion (use
>> template? more_explicit name like ???).
> 
> It's up to Bart.
> 
Bart, should I keep the code like this or do you suggest a name change 
so that's it's more appealing?