On 22/05/2023 13:18, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
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.
Bart, should I keep the code like this or do you suggest a name change
so that's it's more appealing?
