On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 11:34:44PM +0800, Kent Gibson wrote:

On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 05:27:29PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 11:19:01PM +0800, Kent Gibson wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 05:10:23PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 05:58:13PM +0800, Kent Gibson wrote:

...

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

-	spin_lock_irqsave(&gpio_lock, flags);

Shouldn't this be covered by patch 1 (I mean conversion to scoped_guard()
instead of spinlock)?

Read the cover letter.
Doing that made the change larger, as flags gets removed then restored.
I had also thought the flag tests would get indented then unindented, but
if we use guard() the indentation should remain unchanged.

I'm fine with that as I pointed out (have you received that mail? I had
problems with my mail server) the dflags is better semantically, so restoration
with _different_ name is fine.

I have noted that some of your replies have been delayed, and I can't be sure
of what I might not've received. I can't say I've seen one that mentions the
dflags name being preferable.

I prefer the plain flags name, if there is only one flag variable in the
function.

I pointed out that lflags / dflags is kinda idiomatic internally to gpiolib*
code base. Using flags might feel misleading and otherwise will hint about
semantics of the variable. That said, I prefer it being named dflags.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko