On Sat, Feb 1, 2025 at 12:36 PM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 21:24:40 +0100, David Lechner <dlechner@xxxxxxxxxxxx> said: > > This series was inspired by some minor annoyance I have experienced a > > few times in recent reviews. > > > > Calling gpiod_set_array_value_cansleep() can be quite verbose due to > > having so many parameters. In most cases, we already have a struct > > gpio_descs that contains the first 3 parameters so we end up with 3 (or > > often even 6) pointer indirections at each call site. Also, people have > > a tendency to want to hard-code the first argument instead of using > > struct gpio_descs.ndescs, often without checking that ndescs >= the > > hard-coded value. > > > > So I'm proposing that we add a gpiods_set_array_value_cansleep() > > function that is a wrapper around gpiod_set_array_value_cansleep() > > that has struct gpio_descs as the first parameter to make it a bit > > easier to read the code and avoid the hard-coding temptation. > > > > I've just done gpiods_set_array_value_cansleep() for now since there > > were over 10 callers of this one. There aren't as many callers of > > the get and atomic variants, but we can add those too if this seems > > like a useful thing to do. > This looks good to me except for one thing: the function prefix. I would > really appreciate it if we could stay within the existing gpiod_ namespace and > not add a new one in the form of gpiods_. > > Maybe: gpiod_multiple_set_ or gpiod_collected_set...? +1 here, i.e. I like the idea, but the naming needs to be amended. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
