Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 2 May 2024 09:19:42 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/4] mfd: intel-lpss: Utilize i2c-designware.h | From | Florian Fainelli <> |
| |
On 5/2/24 00:17, Lee Jones wrote: > On Tue, 23 Apr 2024, Florian Fainelli wrote: > >> >> >> On 4/23/2024 5:00 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >>> Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 04:36:20PM -0700, Florian Fainelli kirjoitti: >>>> Rather than open code the i2c_designware string, utilize the newly >>>> defined constant in i2c-designware.h. >>> >>> ... >>> >>>> static const struct mfd_cell intel_lpss_i2c_cell = { >>>> - .name = "i2c_designware", >>>> + .name = I2C_DESIGNWARE_NAME, >>>> .num_resources = ARRAY_SIZE(intel_lpss_dev_resources), >>>> .resources = intel_lpss_dev_resources, >>>> }; >>> >>> We have tons of drivers that are using explicit naming, why is this case >>> special? >>> >> >> It is not special, just one of the 3 cases outside of drivers/i2c/busses >> that reference a driver living under drivers/i2c/busses, as I replied in the >> cover letter, this is a contract between the various device drivers and >> their users, so we should have a central place where it is defined, not >> repeated. > > I have always held the opinion that replacing user-facing strings with > defines harms debugability, since grepping becomes a multi-stage > process, often with ambiguous results (in the case of multiple > definitions with the same name. Please keep the string in-place.
I am not buying into that argument and the fact that Duangiang was able to trip over the lack of an explicit contract between drivers seems like a bigger obstacle than doing a multi-stage grep. Anyway, I have no skin in this game, I just don't like seeing repetition and not stating contracts between drivers more explicitly. -- Florian
[unhandled content-type:application/pkcs7-signature] | |