On 2/1/25 1:47 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > 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() ? > OK, taking all these suggestions into consideration along with having recently come across regmap_multi_reg_write(), I think I'll go with: gpiod_multi_set_value_cansleep()
