On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Boris Brezillon
[off-list ref] wrote:

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

quoted

quoted

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).

Sorry, I'm just too stressed by all patches. I now read back on the
context below.

quoted

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 :-/.

Yeah.

quoted

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.

But that is just insane. Then it is just better to apply this and the
other patch making the situation manageable.

This is a good time to do it too since I'm anyways patching around
in all the consumers this merge window.

Dmitry: is this such a big deal to you?

commit 40b7318319281b1bdec804f6435f26cadd329c13
"gpio: Support for unified device properties interface"

by Mika Westerberg introduced

fwnode_get_named_gpiod()
devm_get_gpiod_from_child()

Both are taking a fwnode as argument and the naming is as
inconsistent as it can be.

Some more churn should be expected as a side
effect of naming this function wrong in the first place.
The fwnode API change was on fast-forward and mistakes
were made, also by me, mea culpa.

When I write kernel code, I usually intuitively look for a function doing
what I want, this naming is unintuitive, and it has confused me so
it will confuse others.

Can I please apply these two patches?

Yours,
Linus Walleij