Hi, On 17/02/20 09:17, Wolfram Sang wrote: > >>> Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >>> -struct i2c_client *i2c_setup_smbus_alert(struct i2c_adapter *adapter, >>> +struct i2c_client *i2c_install_smbus_alert(struct i2c_adapter *adapter, >>> struct i2c_smbus_alert_setup *setup); >> >> This function naming is a bit odd. It creates a struct i2c_client. >> Then, there is also i2c_new_client_device() and i2c_new_device(). For >> i2c_new_client_device() there are no users at all outside of >> i2c-core-base.c (except for Falcon NIC), it is only a wrapper. > > i2c_new_device (and friends) returned NULL on error. I am currently > converting all i2c_new_* functions to return an ERRPTR. So, > i2c_new_client_device is the new function, i2c_new_device is deprecated. > If you check v5.6-rc1, you will find many more users. Similarily, > i2c_new_dummy is deprecated (and removed already), i2c_new_dummy_device > is the new thing. > >> So how about reducing the interface to those both only to:? >> >> i2c_new_device() >> i2c_new_device_smbus() > > Given the above, it would be: > > i2c_new_client_device() > i2c_new_smbus_device() > > Yet, I think this is too vague. Maybe > > i2c_new_smbus_alert_device() I always found the function naming a bit messy in the linux i2c implementation. Among the names proposed in this thread, i2c_new_smbus_alert_device() is the only one that makes sense to me for the new function: it is not vague, and it is coherent with other names of recently introduced functions (i2c_new_*_device()). Of course the "alert device" is not a real device, but it looks like it is as it has its own "slave" address. So I vote for this name... > ? Note that I never used SMBus Alert, so I am happy for feedback from > people actually using it. ...but that said, I'm afraid I'm not using smbus alert. My 2c, -- Luca
