Hi Linus,

On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 14:05:43 +0100
Linus Walleij [off-list ref] wrote:

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

quoted

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

quoted

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...

Sorry for forcing your hand like this, but this is the kind of
discussion I'm not comfortable with (when I need to argue on something
I'm not completely convinced of, or I don't have opinion on).

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.

Indeed, a new function is added (see patch 2), and this new function is
taking an additional 'index' parameter. If that's a problem, I can also
change the prototype of devm_get_gpiod_from_child() and patch all
existing users of this function, but I fear we'll end up with pretty
much the same discussion :-/.

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.

I can still name the new function as you suggested
(devm_fwnode_get_index_gpiod_from_child()), and keep the existing one
unchanged if you want.

Just let me know what you prefer.

Thanks,

Boris