Re: [PATCH] gpiolib: unexport gpiod_set_transitory()

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Sep 04, 2023 at 01:32:38PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 1:19 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

...

> This is still inconsistent with the rest of the public symbols -
> especially those in gpio/driver.h. My long-term plan - before making
> locking great again - is to limit the usage of any gpiochip_ symbols
> to GPIO providers (as the chip is not guaranteed to be valid, unlike
> gpio_device) and provide a bunch of gpio_device_ or gpiodev_
> interfaces for use by those who *really* need it. Now am I going to
> make up two distinct prefixes for public and non-public APIs? That
> will be even more confusing IMO.
> 
> Just like in C++ you don't make up special names for public vs private
> methods except for some deranged coding styles that also require you
> to name arguments like "in_foo" and "out_bar".

Yeah, I understand your point of view on this, but as I said
"disagree and commit" (used to be corporate value at some point :-).

On my side I criticized and proposed... It's your turn what to do
with that, I'm not insisting on my way, I'm just telling I don't like
yours, but I will survive, no hard feelings :-)

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko