Messages in this thread | | | From | Andy Shevchenko <> | Date | Mon, 22 May 2023 14:18:50 +0300 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] gpio: tps65219: add GPIO support for TPS65219 PMIC |
| |
On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 10:47 AM jerome Neanne <jneanne@baylibre.com> wrote: > On 20/05/2023 11:44, andy.shevchenko@gmail.com 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@baylibre.com> 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
| |