On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 11:09 AM jerome Neanne <jneanne@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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?
Yes, I prefer it to be named something something template for clarity.
tps65219_template_chip would be great.
Bart
