On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 10:47 AM jerome Neanne <jneanne@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 20/05/2023 11:44, andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > Mon, May 15, 2023 at 05:36:46PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski kirjoitti:
> >> On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 4:09 PM Jerome Neanne <jneanne@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
> >>> + gpio->gpio_chip = tps65219_gpio_chip;
> >>
> >> Aren't you getting any warnings here about dropping the 'const' from
> >> the global structure?
> >
> > But this is a copy of the contents and not the simple pointer.
I commented on Bart's question.
> In many other places where this is done, the struct is declared like:
>
> static const struct gpio_chip template_chip = {
>
> After internal review, I changed this to:
>
> static const struct gpio_chip tps65219_gpio_chip = {
>
> This is because I didn't want to have this "template" that sounds to me
> like "dummy". Maybe I misunderstood and this "template" was used on
> purpose because this const struct is just copied once to initialize
> tps65219_gpio->gpio_chip during probe.
>
> Introducing tps65219_gpio_chip name is maybe confusing with
> tps65219_gpio struct.
>
> I think the const should not be a problem here but the naming I used
> might be misleading. If you have a suggestion of what is a good practice
> to make this piece of code clearer. I'll follow your suggestion (use
> template? more_explicit name like ???).
It's up to Bart.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
