On Sat, Feb 1, 2025 at 5:09 PM David Lechner <dlechner@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 2/1/25 4:36 AM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > > > 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...? > > > > Bartosz > > I was waiting for someone to complain about the naming. ;-) > > I was going for as short as possible, but OK, the most obvious prefix to me > would be `gpio_descs_...` (to match the first parameter). Any objections to > that? > Yes, objection! As far as any exported interfaces go: in my book "gpio_" is the prefix for legacy symbols we want to go away and "gpiod_" is the prefix for current, descriptor-based API. Anything else is a no-go. I prefer a longer name that starts with gpiod_ over anything that's shorter but doesn't. Bartosz
