Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:3;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20231003145114.21637-1-brgl@bgdev.pl> <20231003145114.21637-5-brgl@bgdev.pl>
 <ZRwtEG1DamMLZC/3@sol> <CAHp75VdSDart2b+_d6_9E204JYa2zyFKdh_Pey6Wb4MZ-Z-L0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZRwyG80u6nIf7PGU@sol> <CAMRc=McbWU+bPph7f6treqNmqJvakj8nLzNEJPjgb8tbG_pWxQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZRznEe2tKmVcVlwr@sol>
In-Reply-To: <ZRznEe2tKmVcVlwr@sol>
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>
Date:   Wed, 4 Oct 2023 09:52:10 +0200
Message-ID: <CAMRc=McscCdtOHggCv9PXVBMOSaG5eHZL-vOhm4AxDN7NLsMHg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/36] gpio: cdev: use pinctrl_gpio_can_use_line_new()
To:     Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy@kernel.org>, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 6:16=E2=80=AFAM Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com> w=
rote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 03, 2023 at 08:07:05PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 5:24=E2=80=AFPM Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.co=
m> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 03, 2023 at 06:17:27PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 6:02=E2=80=AFPM Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmai=
l.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Oct 03, 2023 at 04:50:42PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wro=
te:
> > > >
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > > I agree with the change in principle, just not comfortable with t=
he naming.
> > > >
> > > > +1 here. I proposed some names, have you seen my comment(s)?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I have now - any of those work for me.
> > > Whichever is consistent with what we are using for gpiochip functions=
 in
> > > gpiolib would make most sense to me.
> > >
> >
> > Does it really matter? It's not here to stay, it's temporary and
> > exists only until the whole series is applied - which given that it's
> > limited to gpio and pinctrl, shouldn't take more than one release
> > cycle.
> >
> > There are plenty of examples of this naming convention for temporary
> > symbols - there's even an ongoing effort to replace all .remove()
> > callbacks with .remove_new() which will then be changed back to
> > .remove() treewide.
> >
>
> This was the only patch that I was included into, so I didn't realise
> there was a treewide rename at the end.

I didn't want to spam 20+ maintainers with the entire series of 36
patches. Should have probably Cc'ed everyone on the cover letter
though.

> Even so, using _new suffix for that purpose is poor (well
> pinctrl_gpio_free_new() did draw a laugh, but other than that...).
> Perhaps use something specific to the patch series so it is clear what
> its purpose is?
>

I think Linus will end up applying the entire series to his tree in
one go in which case the name really doesn't matter. Do we really need
to bikeshed about the name which will exist for as long as it takes to
apply the series on his laptop? I much more care about preserving
bisectability across the series which it does.

Bart