On 2/1/25 10:14 AM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > 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 Oops, that was a typo. I meant to write gpiod_descs_.
