On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 01:22:36PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 9:19 AM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 05:03:19PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > By far the most common way of looking up GPIO devices is using their
> > > label. Provide a helpers for that to avoid every user implementing their
> > > own matching function.
...
> > > +static int gpio_chip_match_by_label(struct gpio_chip *gc, void *label)
> > > +{
> > > + return gc->label && !strcmp(gc->label, label);
> > > +}
> >
> > I am still wondering if we can oblige providers to have label to be non-empty.
>
> Of course we can. Just bail out of gpiochip_add_data_with_key() if it
> is. But that's material for a different patch.
Yes, but my point here is that
1) the current users are already following this requirement;
2) the enforcement can be done explicitly somewhere (in the register function).
Is the 1) incorrect assumption?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
