Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] gpiolib: cdev: Split line_get_debounce_period() and use

[Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@xxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 1:56 PM Kent Gibson <warthog618@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 02:39:38PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 09:12:37AM +0800, Kent Gibson wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 07:55:27PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > Instead of repeating the same code and reduce possible miss
> > > > of READ_ONCE(), split line_get_debounce_period() heler out
> > > > and use in the existing cases.
> > > >
> > >
> > > helper
> > >
> > > Not a fan of this change.
> > >
> > > So using READ_ONCE() is repeating code??
> >
> > Yes. Because one may forget about it.
>
> Just as one may forget to use your wrapper.
> This argument is a NULL - so I'll just forget about it.
>
> >
> > > Doesn't providing a wrapper around READ_ONCE() just rename that repitition?
> > > What of all the other uses of READ_ONCE() in cdev (and there are a lot) -
> > > why pick on debounce_period?
> >
> > Because you have a setter, but getter. Inconsistency.
> >
>
> But then "for consistency" ALL the struct line fields require accessors
> and mutators.  That path is insanity.
>
> The setter is there as setting the value now has side effects - none of
> which are visible to the caller, hence the usage of the standard
> setter name.
> You are siggesting every function name describe everything the function
> does?
>
> And, in case you've forgotten, YOU REVIEWED THIS.
>
> > > The line_set_debounce_period() is necessary as the set is now a
> > > multi-step process as it can impact whether the line is contained
> > > in the supinfo_tree.  The get is just a get.
> > >
> > > And you could've included me in the Cc so I didn't just find it by
> > > accident.
> >
> > Maybe it's time to add you to the MAINTAINERS for this file as a designated
> > reviewer?
> >
>
> You are patching my recent change that you yourself reviewed only days
> ago. I would think that you would Cc me whether I were a maintainer or
> not as I'm very likely to have relevant feedback.

On that note: do you see yourself as a full GPIO reviewer or do you
prefer I split out the uAPI part into a separate section in
MAINTAINERS and nominate you as its maintainer?

Bart

>
> Cheers,
> Kent.