On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 8:42 PM, Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 10:39:36 -0800 > Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hmm, yeah, I agree, that would be weird. Then let's leave >> devm_get_gpiod_from_child() as is ;) > > Changing the internal implementation has never been the goal of this > patch. As explained in the commit log, I'm just renaming the function > to make it consistent with other fwnode functions (as suggested by > Linus). > What's happening here is exactly the kind of discussion I wanted to > avoid, and the reason I decided to not change the > devm_get_gpiod_from_child() prototype/name in the first place. > > Linus, is this something you really care about? If that's the case, can > you step in? I can only throw up my hands... The way I percieved it, a new function was added, but I guess it could be that the diffstat was so convoluted in the other patch (by the way that diff sometimes give very confusing stuff unless you use the right fuzz) so I misunderstood some other renaming as introducing a new function. Please drop the patch if it is controversial. The name of the function *is* confusing though but maybe it's not the biggest problem in the world. Yours, Linus Walleij
