Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-59411-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2024 16:07:09 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
Cc: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
	Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: constify opaque pointer in gpio_device_find()
 match function
Message-ID: <ZcYxjSWahbSWQM6g@smile.fi.intel.com>
References: <20240208202704.631203-1-krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240208202704.631203-1-krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo

On Thu, Feb 08, 2024 at 09:27:04PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> The match function used in gpio_device_find() should not modify the
> contents of passed opaque pointer, because such modification would not
> be necessary for actual matching and it could lead to quite unreadable,
> spaghetti code.

IIRC I also asked Bart about this in his series where something similar
was used.

Good it's not only me who sees the benefits from this.
FWIW,
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko