Re: [PATCH 04/36] gpio: cdev: use pinctrl_gpio_can_use_line_new()

[Kent Gibson <warthog618@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Oct 03, 2023 at 08:07:05PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 5:24 PM Kent Gibson <warthog618@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 03, 2023 at 06:17:27PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 6:02 PM Kent Gibson <warthog618@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Oct 03, 2023 at 04:50:42PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > I agree with the change in principle, just not comfortable with the naming.
> > >
> > > +1 here. I proposed some names, have you seen my comment(s)?
> > >
> >
> > I have now - any of those work for me.
> > Whichever is consistent with what we are using for gpiochip functions in
> > gpiolib would make most sense to me.
> >
> 
> Does it really matter? It's not here to stay, it's temporary and
> exists only until the whole series is applied - which given that it's
> limited to gpio and pinctrl, shouldn't take more than one release
> cycle.
> 
> There are plenty of examples of this naming convention for temporary
> symbols - there's even an ongoing effort to replace all .remove()
> callbacks with .remove_new() which will then be changed back to
> .remove() treewide.
> 

This was the only patch that I was included into, so I didn't realise
there was a treewide rename at the end.
Even so, using _new suffix for that purpose is poor (well
pinctrl_gpio_free_new() did draw a laugh, but other than that...).
Perhaps use something specific to the patch series so it is clear what
its purpose is?

Cheers,
Kent.