On Sat, Feb 1, 2025 at 6:22 PM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 1, 2025 at 5:17 PM David Lechner <dlechner@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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...? > > >> > > >> 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. > > > > Oops, that was a typo. I meant to write gpiod_descs_. > > Eh... the D in gpioD already stands for "GPIO Descriptor" but if > there's no better option in your opinion than I guess I can live with > that. gpiod_set_many_value_cansleep() ? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
