Re: [PATCH 00/13] gpiolib: add gpiods_set_array_value_cansleep

[Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@xxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 11:39 PM David Lechner <dlechner@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 2/1/25 1:47 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 1, 2025 at 6:22 PM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On Sat, Feb 1, 2025 at 5:17 PM David Lechner <dlechner@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> On 2/1/25 10:14 AM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> >>>> On Sat, Feb 1, 2025 at 5:09 PM David Lechner <dlechner@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>> On 2/1/25 4:36 AM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> >>>>>> This looks good to me except for one thing: the function prefix. I would
> >>>>>> really appreciate it if we could stay within the existing gpiod_ namespace and
> >>>>>> not add a new one in the form of gpiods_.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Maybe: gpiod_multiple_set_ or gpiod_collected_set...?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I was waiting for someone to complain about the naming. ;-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I was going for as short as possible, but OK, the most obvious prefix to me
> >>>>> would be `gpio_descs_...` (to match the first parameter). Any objections to
> >>>>> that?
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, objection! As far as any exported interfaces go: in my book
> >>>> "gpio_" is the prefix for legacy symbols we want to go away and
> >>>> "gpiod_" is the prefix for current, descriptor-based API. Anything
> >>>> else is a no-go. I prefer a longer name that starts with gpiod_ over
> >>>> anything that's shorter but doesn't.
> >>>
> >>> Oops, that was a typo. I meant to write gpiod_descs_.
> >>
> >> Eh... the D in gpioD already stands for "GPIO Descriptor" but if
> >> there's no better option in your opinion than I guess I can live with
> >> that.
> >
> > gpiod_set_many_value_cansleep() ?
> >
>
> OK, taking all these suggestions into consideration along with having recently
> come across regmap_multi_reg_write(), I think I'll go with:
>
> gpiod_multi_set_value_cansleep()

Sounds good.

Bart