Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-76199-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240215083328.11464-1-brgl@bgdev.pl> <CACRpkdYhWk1dHeDHOf+6LM8gZ5Oh--6mpeeA7wskDFYZ-2cmJw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMRc=Me5xHEG5K1SwCKLuVri37a4X-HCbwav2Bu3dVgmWERj_A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMRc=Me5xHEG5K1SwCKLuVri37a4X-HCbwav2Bu3dVgmWERj_A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2024 10:18:02 +0100
Message-ID: <CACRpkdadDXE6a+oLDnYsvzQjpfLR5qQdcqos+y23Nb8PodzG_g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] gpio: provide for_each_gpio()
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>
Cc: 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

On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 9:48=E2=80=AFAM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>=
 wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 10:51=E2=80=AFPM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@lin=
aro.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Bartosz,
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 9:33=E2=80=AFAM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev=
pl> wrote:
> >
> > > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>
> > >
> > > We only provide iterators for requested GPIOs to provider drivers. In
> > > order to allow them to display debug information about all GPIOs, let=
's
> > > provide a variant for iterating over all GPIOs.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>
> > (...)
> >
> > > +/**
> > > + * for_each_gpio - Iterates over all GPIOs for given chip.
> >
> > Does this really intuitively fit with other functions named for_each_XX=
X()?
> >
> > > + * @_chip: Chip to iterate over.
> > > + * @_i: Loop counter.
> > > + * @_label: Place to store the address of the label if the GPIO is r=
equested.
> > > + *          Set to NULL for unused GPIOs.
> > > + */
> > > +#define for_each_gpio(_chip, _i, _label) \
> > > +       for (CLASS(_gpiochip_for_each_data, _data)(&_label, &_i); \
> > > +            *_data.i < _chip->ngpio; \
> > > +            (*_data.i)++, kfree(*(_data.label)), *_data.label =3D NU=
LL) \
> > > +               if (IS_ERR(*_data.label =3D \
> > > +                       gpiochip_dup_line_label(_chip, *_data.i))) {}=
 \
> > > +               else
> >
> > I would call it for_each_line_label() or something. I try to avoid usin=
g
> > "gpio" in function names as well because of ambiguity, I could also go
> > with for_each_hwgpio_label() I suppose.
>
> The problem is: this doesn't iterate over labels. It really goes
> through all offsets and if there's no consumer then the label is NULL
> (I should have said that in the kerneldoc).
>
> >
> > With some more reasonable name:
>
> Does for_each_hwgpio() make more sense?

It's better it reflects the usage, but isn't the usage to conditionally
extract the label (or NULL) for each hwgpio?

What I'm after is if there is a risk that someone think this is a generic
iterator for hwgpios which would be confusing.

At the same time
for_each_hwgpio_attempt_extract_label() is a bit long I guess.

I don't wanna bikeshed too much so go with for_each_hwgpio() if
you don't immediately see anything better.

Yours,
Linus Walleij