On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 01:11:55 -0800
Dmitry Torokhov [off-list ref] wrote:

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:07:21AM +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote:

quoted

On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 00:44:47 -0800
Dmitry Torokhov [off-list ref] wrote:
  

quoted

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 09:04:32AM +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote:  

quoted

On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 17:06:07 -0800
Dmitry Torokhov [off-list ref] wrote:
    

quoted

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 04:41:48PM +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote:    

quoted

Rename devm_get_gpiod_from_child() into
devm_fwnode_get_gpiod_from_child() to reflect the fact that this
function is operating on a fwnode object.      

I believe this is completely pointless rename. Are you planning on
adding devm_of_get_gpiod_from_child()? Or
devm_acpt_get_gpiod_from_child()? (I sure hope not).    

Of course not.
    

quoted

Also, on what object? Does it take fwnode as first argument? Or maybe we
should call it devm_dev_const_charp_fwnode_get_gpiod_from_child() so we
know types of all arguments?    

Linus suggested to rename this function [1]. I personally don't care
much about the name, though I agree with Linus that names should be
consistent and descriptive. Moreover, he's the maintainer, and I tend
to follow maintainers suggestion when I contribute to a specific
subsystem.    

OK, I did not know that that was Linus' request, my objection still
stands.
  

quoted

IIUC, you're concerned about the length of this function name. If I had
to drop something it would be the _from_child() suffix, because the
function is not even checking that the child parameter is actually a
direct child (or a descendant) of device->fwnode.    

OK, that sounds better. Actually, we already have
fwnode_get_named_gpiod(), unfortunately it does not do suffixes
permutations. There are also no users, except
devm_get_gpiod_from_child(). So I would:

- rename fwnode_get_named_gpiod() -> static __fwnode_get_named_gpiod()
- made new fwnode_get_named_gpiod() that did suffix permutation and
  called __fwnode_get_named_gpiod() (or pulled its implementation
  inline)  

Sorry but I don't follow you. Why do you need
__fwnode_get_named_gpiod(),  

You do not need it, it will just reduce size of the patch if you use
it. I'd be perfectly fine not with having it and have everything in
fwnode_get_named_gpiod().

Okay.

quoted

and what is the suffix permutation you're
mentioning here?  

devm_get_gpiod_from_child() tries to apply "-gpio" and "-gpios" suffixes
to the supplied GPIO ID while current fwnode_get_named_gpiod() takes
property name literally.

fwnode_get_named_gpiod() just mimics what of_get_named_gpiod_flags(),
acpi_node_get_gpiod(), of_find_gpio() and acpi_find_gpio() do. It would
be weird/inconsistent to have the con_id suffixing logic moved in the
fwnode_get_named_gpiod() (if that's what you're suggesting, but I'm not
sure it is).