On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 8:42 PM, Boris Brezillon
[off-list ref] wrote:

On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 10:39:36 -0800
Dmitry Torokhov [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Hmm, yeah, I agree, that would be weird. Then let's leave
devm_get_gpiod_from_child() as is ;)

Changing the internal implementation has never been the goal of this
patch. As explained in the commit log, I'm just renaming the function
to make it consistent with other fwnode functions (as suggested by
Linus).
What's happening here is exactly the kind of discussion I wanted to
avoid, and the reason I decided to not change the
devm_get_gpiod_from_child() prototype/name in the first place.

Linus, is this something you really care about? If that's the case, can
you step in?

I can only throw up my hands... The way I percieved it, a new function
was added, but I guess it could be that the diffstat was so
convoluted in the other patch (by the way that diff sometimes give
very confusing stuff unless you use the right fuzz) so I misunderstood
some other renaming as introducing a new function.

Please drop the patch if it is controversial.

The name of the function *is* confusing though but maybe it's not
the biggest problem in the world.

Yours,
Linus Walleij