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

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.

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.

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. Also, if we want to
be consistent with the rest of the GPIO API, we could rename it
devm_gpiod_get_from_fwnode() (with the function in added in patch 2
renamed into devm_gpiod_get_from_fwnode()).

Linus, what do you think?

One last thing, I don't want to start a discussion where we're
bikeshedding on a function name instead of focusing on the
functionality, so if it turns into this kind of discussion I'll
probably implement devm_fwnode_get_gpiod_from_child() directly in the
atmel NAND driver and wait for an agreement before switching to the
official version.

Regards,

Boris

[1]https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg558986.html