Hello, On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 06:40:43PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 02:32:25PM +0200, Oleksandr Suvorov wrote: > > The polarity enum definition PWM_POLARITY_INVERSED is misspelled. > > Rename it to PWM_POLARITY_INVERTED. > > It isn't misspelled. "inversed" is a synonym for "inverted". Both > spellings are correct. Some time ago I stumbled about "inversed", too. My spell checker doesn't know it and I checked some dictionaries and none of them knew that word: https://www.lexico.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&filter=dictionary&dictionary=en&query=inversed https://de.pons.com/%C3%BCbersetzung/englisch-deutsch/inversed https://dictionary.cambridge.org/spellcheck/english-german/?q=inversed https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/inverse#Verb mentions "inverse" as a verb having "inversed" as past participle. Having said this I think (independent of the question if "inversed" exists) using two similar terms for the same thing just results in confusion. I hit that in the past already and I like it being addressed. > And as you noted in the cover letter, there's a conflict between the > macro defined in dt-bindings/pwm/pwm.txt. If they end up being included > in the wrong order you'll get a compile error. There are also other symbols that exist twice (GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH was the first to come to my mind). I'm not aware of any problems related to these. What am I missing? > The enum was named this way on purpose to make it separate from the > definition for the DT bindings. Then please let's make it different by picking a different prefix or something like that. > Note that DT bindings are an ABI and can > never change, whereas the enum pwm_polarity is part of a Linux internal > API and doesn't have the same restrictions as an ABI. I thought only binary device trees (dtb) are supposed to be ABI. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
