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: <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> <0cf870f1-8cdb-df74-79d6-a4004cdfcc2f@baylibre.com>
In-Reply-To: <0cf870f1-8cdb-df74-79d6-a4004cdfcc2f@baylibre.com>
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>
Date:   Fri, 26 May 2023 15:31:27 +0200
Message-ID: <CAMRc=MfFASi0v-B3FRy=57_1hn46wwXJZ=b9Dzf0nM-4_Jo9aQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] gpio: tps65219: add GPIO support for TPS65219 PMIC
To:     jerome Neanne <jneanne@baylibre.com>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>,
        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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 11:09=E2=80=AFAM jerome Neanne <jneanne@baylibre.co=
m> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 22/05/2023 13:18, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 10:47=E2=80=AFAM jerome Neanne <jneanne@baylibr=
e.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=E2=80=AFPM Jerome Neanne <jneanne@bayli=
bre.com> wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> >>>>> +       gpio->gpio_chip =3D 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 =3D {
> >>
> >> After internal review, I changed this to:
> >>
> >> static const struct gpio_chip tps65219_gpio_chip =3D {
> >>
> >> This is because I didn't want to have this "template" that sounds to m=
e
> >> 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 practi=
ce
> >> 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?

Yes, I prefer it to be named something something template for clarity.

tps65219_template_chip would be great.

Bart