On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 09:15:29PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 2:15 PM Andy Shevchenko > <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 11:24:49AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > + > > > + /* > > > + * FIXME If anyone knows a better way to parse that - please let me > > > + * know. > > > + */ > > > > If comma can be replaced with ' ' (space) then why not to use next_arg() from > > cmdline.c? I.o.w. do you have strong opinion why should we use comma here? > > > > My opinion is not very strong but I wanted to make the list of names > resemble what we pass to the gpio-line-names property in device tree. > Doesn't next_arg() react differently to string of the form: "foo=bar"? It's ambiguous here. So, the strings '"foo=bar"' and 'foo=bar' (w/o single quotes!) are indeed parsed differently, i.e. '"foo=bar"' -> 'foo=bar', while "foo=bar" -> 'foo' + 'bar'. ... > > > + ida_free(&gpio_sim_ida, id); > > > > Isn't it atomic per se? I mean that IDA won't give the same ID until you free > > it. I.o.w. why is it under the mutex? > > > > You're right but if we rapidly create and destroy chips we'll be left > with holes in the numbering (because new devices would be created > before the IDA numbers are freed, so the driver would take a larger > number that's currently free). It doesn't hurt but it would look worse > IMO. Do you have a strong opinion on this? It's not strong per se, but I would rather follow the 2nd rule of locking: don't protect something which doesn't need it. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
