Re: [PATCH 1/2] gpio: provide for_each_gpio()

[Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@xxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 10:51 PM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Bartosz,
>
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 9:33 AM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > We only provide iterators for requested GPIOs to provider drivers. In
> > order to allow them to display debug information about all GPIOs, let's
> > provide a variant for iterating over all GPIOs.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@xxxxxxxxxx>
> (...)
>
> > +/**
> > + * for_each_gpio - Iterates over all GPIOs for given chip.
>
> Does this really intuitively fit with other functions named for_each_XXX()?
>
> > + * @_chip: Chip to iterate over.
> > + * @_i: Loop counter.
> > + * @_label: Place to store the address of the label if the GPIO is requested.
> > + *          Set to NULL for unused GPIOs.
> > + */
> > +#define for_each_gpio(_chip, _i, _label) \
> > +       for (CLASS(_gpiochip_for_each_data, _data)(&_label, &_i); \
> > +            *_data.i < _chip->ngpio; \
> > +            (*_data.i)++, kfree(*(_data.label)), *_data.label = NULL) \
> > +               if (IS_ERR(*_data.label = \
> > +                       gpiochip_dup_line_label(_chip, *_data.i))) {} \
> > +               else
>
> I would call it for_each_line_label() or something. I try to avoid using
> "gpio" in function names as well because of ambiguity, I could also go
> with for_each_hwgpio_label() I suppose.

The problem is: this doesn't iterate over labels. It really goes
through all offsets and if there's no consumer then the label is NULL
(I should have said that in the kerneldoc).

>
> With some more reasonable name:

Does for_each_hwgpio() make more sense?

Bart

> Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Yours,
> Linus Walleij