On 5/2/24 00:17, Lee Jones wrote:
On Tue, 23 Apr 2024, Florian Fainelli wrote:On 4/23/2024 5:00 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 04:36:20PM -0700, Florian Fainelli kirjoitti:Rather than open code the i2c_designware string, utilize the newly defined constant in i2c-designware.h....static const struct mfd_cell intel_lpss_i2c_cell = { - .name = "i2c_designware", + .name = I2C_DESIGNWARE_NAME, .num_resources = ARRAY_SIZE(intel_lpss_dev_resources), .resources = intel_lpss_dev_resources, };We have tons of drivers that are using explicit naming, why is this case special?It is not special, just one of the 3 cases outside of drivers/i2c/busses that reference a driver living under drivers/i2c/busses, as I replied in the cover letter, this is a contract between the various device drivers and their users, so we should have a central place where it is defined, not repeated.I have always held the opinion that replacing user-facing strings with defines harms debugability, since grepping becomes a multi-stage process, often with ambiguous results (in the case of multiple definitions with the same name. Please keep the string in-place.
I am not buying into that argument and the fact that Duangiang was able to trip over the lack of an explicit contract between drivers seems like a bigger obstacle than doing a multi-stage grep. Anyway, I have no skin in this game, I just don't like seeing repetition and not stating contracts between drivers more explicitly.
-- Florian
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
