Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 23 May 2023 11:09:51 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] gpio: tps65219: add GPIO support for TPS65219 PMIC | From | jerome Neanne <> |
| |
On 22/05/2023 13:18, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > 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. > Bart, should I keep the code like this or do you suggest a name change so that's it's more appealing?
| |