Re: [PATCH v2 09/12] gpio: sim: new testing module

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Mar 08, 2021 at 03:23:31PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 11:15 AM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 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'.
> >
> 
> IMO '"foo", "bar", "", "foobar"' looks better than '"foo" "bar" ""
> "foobar"' and I'm also not sure next_arg will understand an empty
> quote?

I guess it understands it. But I agree that comma-separated it would look
better.

> If you're not objecting strongly, then I would prefer my version.

I have strong opinion not to open code "yet another parser".

So, grepping on 'strsep(.*, ",")' shows a lot of code that wants something like
this. Interesting are the net/9p cases. This in particular pointed out to
lib/parser.c which in turn shows promising match_strlcpy() / match_strdup(). I
haven't looked deeply though.

That said, I agree that next_arg() is not the best here.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko