In order to reduce the 'gpio' namespace when operate over GPIO descriptor
rename gpio_set_debounce_timeout() to gpiod_do_set_debounce().
Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
---
drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c | 4 ++--
drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c | 4 ++--
drivers/gpio/gpiolib.h | 2 +-
3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c
index 2aa88ace5868..3f442127222d 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c
@@ -340,7 +340,7 @@ static struct gpio_desc *acpi_request_own_gpiod(struct gpio_chip *chip,
return desc;
/* ACPI uses hundredths of milliseconds units */
- ret = gpio_set_debounce_timeout(desc, agpio->debounce_timeout * 10);
+ ret = gpiod_do_set_debounce(desc, agpio->debounce_timeout * 10);
if (ret)
dev_warn(chip->parent,
"Failed to set debounce-timeout for pin 0x%04X, err %d\n",
@@ -1098,7 +1098,7 @@ int acpi_dev_gpio_irq_wake_get_by(struct acpi_device *adev, const char *con_id,
return ret;
/* ACPI uses hundredths of milliseconds units */
- ret = gpio_set_debounce_timeout(desc, info.debounce * 10);
+ ret = gpiod_do_set_debounce(desc, info.debounce * 10);
if (ret)
return ret;
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
index df5b85284788..8980eef6802c 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
@@ -2697,7 +2697,7 @@ static int gpio_set_bias(struct gpio_desc *desc)
}
/**
- * gpio_set_debounce_timeout() - Set debounce timeout
+ * gpiod_do_set_debounce() - Set debounce timeout
* @desc: GPIO descriptor to set the debounce timeout
* @debounce: Debounce timeout in microseconds
*
@@ -2707,7 +2707,7 @@ static int gpio_set_bias(struct gpio_desc *desc)
* Returns:
* 0 on success, or negative errno on failure.
*/
-int gpio_set_debounce_timeout(struct gpio_desc *desc, unsigned int debounce)
+int gpiod_do_set_debounce(struct gpio_desc *desc, unsigned int debounce)
{
int ret;
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.h b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.h
index 65db879d1c74..b3ea7b710995 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.h
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.h
@@ -263,7 +263,7 @@ struct gpio_desc *gpiod_find_and_request(struct device *consumer,
int gpio_do_set_config(struct gpio_desc *desc, unsigned long config);
int gpiod_configure_flags(struct gpio_desc *desc, const char *con_id,
unsigned long lflags, enum gpiod_flags dflags);
-int gpio_set_debounce_timeout(struct gpio_desc *desc, unsigned int debounce);
+int gpiod_do_set_debounce(struct gpio_desc *desc, unsigned int debounce);
int gpiod_hog(struct gpio_desc *desc, const char *name,
unsigned long lflags, enum gpiod_flags dflags);
int gpiochip_get_ngpios(struct gpio_chip *gc, struct device *dev);
--
2.47.2On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 06:00:33PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> In order to reduce the 'gpio' namespace when operate over GPIO descriptor
> rename gpio_set_debounce_timeout() to gpiod_do_set_debounce().
To me anything that has '_do_' in their name sounds like an internal static
function that gets wrapped by the actual API function(s).
For instance it could be
int gpio_set_debounce_timeout()
{
...
gpiod_do_set_debounce()
...
However, gpiod_set_debounce_timeout() or gpiod_set_debounce() sounds good
to me.
On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 11:18:04AM +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 06:00:33PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > In order to reduce the 'gpio' namespace when operate over GPIO descriptor
> > rename gpio_set_debounce_timeout() to gpiod_do_set_debounce().
>
> To me anything that has '_do_' in their name sounds like an internal static
> function that gets wrapped by the actual API function(s).
>
> For instance it could be
>
> int gpio_set_debounce_timeout()
> {
> ...
> gpiod_do_set_debounce()
> ...
>
> However, gpiod_set_debounce_timeout() or gpiod_set_debounce() sounds good
> to me.
Then please propose the second name for gpiod_set_config_XXX to follow
the same pattern. The series unifies naming and reduces the current
inconsistency.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 12:59:25PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 11:18:04AM +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 06:00:33PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > In order to reduce the 'gpio' namespace when operate over GPIO descriptor
> > > rename gpio_set_debounce_timeout() to gpiod_do_set_debounce().
> >
> > To me anything that has '_do_' in their name sounds like an internal static
> > function that gets wrapped by the actual API function(s).
> >
> > For instance it could be
> >
> > int gpio_set_debounce_timeout()
> > {
> > ...
> > gpiod_do_set_debounce()
> > ...
> >
> > However, gpiod_set_debounce_timeout() or gpiod_set_debounce() sounds good
> > to me.
>
> Then please propose the second name for gpiod_set_config_XXX to follow
> the same pattern. The series unifies naming and reduces the current
> inconsistency.
gpiod_set_config()?
On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 01:11:57PM +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 12:59:25PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 11:18:04AM +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 06:00:33PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > In order to reduce the 'gpio' namespace when operate over GPIO descriptor
> > > > rename gpio_set_debounce_timeout() to gpiod_do_set_debounce().
> > >
> > > To me anything that has '_do_' in their name sounds like an internal static
> > > function that gets wrapped by the actual API function(s).
> > >
> > > For instance it could be
> > >
> > > int gpio_set_debounce_timeout()
> > > {
> > > ...
> > > gpiod_do_set_debounce()
> > > ...
> > >
> > > However, gpiod_set_debounce_timeout() or gpiod_set_debounce() sounds good
> > > to me.
> >
> > Then please propose the second name for gpiod_set_config_XXX to follow
> > the same pattern. The series unifies naming and reduces the current
> > inconsistency.
> gpiod_set_config()?
The problem is that
gpiod_set_debounce() and gpiod_set_config() are _existing_ public APIs.
That's why I considered "_do_" fitting the purpose.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 01:16:54PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 01:11:57PM +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 12:59:25PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 11:18:04AM +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 06:00:33PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > In order to reduce the 'gpio' namespace when operate over GPIO descriptor
> > > > > rename gpio_set_debounce_timeout() to gpiod_do_set_debounce().
> > > >
> > > > To me anything that has '_do_' in their name sounds like an internal static
> > > > function that gets wrapped by the actual API function(s).
> > > >
> > > > For instance it could be
> > > >
> > > > int gpio_set_debounce_timeout()
> > > > {
> > > > ...
> > > > gpiod_do_set_debounce()
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > However, gpiod_set_debounce_timeout() or gpiod_set_debounce() sounds good
> > > > to me.
> > >
> > > Then please propose the second name for gpiod_set_config_XXX to follow
> > > the same pattern. The series unifies naming and reduces the current
> > > inconsistency.
>
> > gpiod_set_config()?
>
> The problem is that
>
> gpiod_set_debounce() and gpiod_set_config() are _existing_ public APIs.
> That's why I considered "_do_" fitting the purpose.
I see.
Hmm, we have:
int gpiod_set_debounce(struct gpio_desc *desc, unsigned int debounce)
{
unsigned long config;
config = pinconf_to_config_packed(PIN_CONFIG_INPUT_DEBOUNCE, debounce);
return gpiod_set_config(desc, config);
}
and
int gpio_set_debounce_timeout(struct gpio_desc *desc, unsigned int debounce)
{
int ret;
ret = gpio_set_config_with_argument_optional(desc,
PIN_CONFIG_INPUT_DEBOUNCE,
debounce);
if (!ret)
gpiod_line_state_notify(desc, GPIO_V2_LINE_CHANGED_CONFIG);
return ret;
}
I wonder if there is an opportunity to consolidate? ;-)
On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 01:31:35PM +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 01:16:54PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 01:11:57PM +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 12:59:25PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 11:18:04AM +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 06:00:33PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > > In order to reduce the 'gpio' namespace when operate over GPIO descriptor
> > > > > > rename gpio_set_debounce_timeout() to gpiod_do_set_debounce().
> > > > >
> > > > > To me anything that has '_do_' in their name sounds like an internal static
> > > > > function that gets wrapped by the actual API function(s).
> > > > >
> > > > > For instance it could be
> > > > >
> > > > > int gpio_set_debounce_timeout()
> > > > > {
> > > > > ...
> > > > > gpiod_do_set_debounce()
> > > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > However, gpiod_set_debounce_timeout() or gpiod_set_debounce() sounds good
> > > > > to me.
> > > >
> > > > Then please propose the second name for gpiod_set_config_XXX to follow
> > > > the same pattern. The series unifies naming and reduces the current
> > > > inconsistency.
> >
> > > gpiod_set_config()?
> >
> > The problem is that
> >
> > gpiod_set_debounce() and gpiod_set_config() are _existing_ public APIs.
> > That's why I considered "_do_" fitting the purpose.
>
> I see.
>
> Hmm, we have:
>
> int gpiod_set_debounce(struct gpio_desc *desc, unsigned int debounce)
> {
> unsigned long config;
>
> config = pinconf_to_config_packed(PIN_CONFIG_INPUT_DEBOUNCE, debounce);
> return gpiod_set_config(desc, config);
> }
>
> and
>
> int gpio_set_debounce_timeout(struct gpio_desc *desc, unsigned int debounce)
> {
> int ret;
>
> ret = gpio_set_config_with_argument_optional(desc,
> PIN_CONFIG_INPUT_DEBOUNCE,
> debounce);
> if (!ret)
> gpiod_line_state_notify(desc, GPIO_V2_LINE_CHANGED_CONFIG);
>
> return ret;
> }
>
> I wonder if there is an opportunity to consolidate? ;-)
Send a patch! I would be glad to see less functions and internal APIs in
GPIOLIB.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
On Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 1:00 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 01:31:35PM +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 01:16:54PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 01:11:57PM +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 12:59:25PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 11:18:04AM +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 06:00:33PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > > > In order to reduce the 'gpio' namespace when operate over GPIO descriptor
> > > > > > > rename gpio_set_debounce_timeout() to gpiod_do_set_debounce().
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To me anything that has '_do_' in their name sounds like an internal static
> > > > > > function that gets wrapped by the actual API function(s).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For instance it could be
> > > > > >
> > > > > > int gpio_set_debounce_timeout()
> > > > > > {
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > gpiod_do_set_debounce()
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However, gpiod_set_debounce_timeout() or gpiod_set_debounce() sounds good
> > > > > > to me.
> > > > >
> > > > > Then please propose the second name for gpiod_set_config_XXX to follow
> > > > > the same pattern. The series unifies naming and reduces the current
> > > > > inconsistency.
> > >
> > > > gpiod_set_config()?
> > >
> > > The problem is that
> > >
> > > gpiod_set_debounce() and gpiod_set_config() are _existing_ public APIs.
> > > That's why I considered "_do_" fitting the purpose.
> >
> > I see.
> >
> > Hmm, we have:
> >
> > int gpiod_set_debounce(struct gpio_desc *desc, unsigned int debounce)
> > {
> > unsigned long config;
> >
> > config = pinconf_to_config_packed(PIN_CONFIG_INPUT_DEBOUNCE, debounce);
> > return gpiod_set_config(desc, config);
> > }
> >
> > and
> >
> > int gpio_set_debounce_timeout(struct gpio_desc *desc, unsigned int debounce)
> > {
> > int ret;
> >
> > ret = gpio_set_config_with_argument_optional(desc,
> > PIN_CONFIG_INPUT_DEBOUNCE,
> > debounce);
> > if (!ret)
> > gpiod_line_state_notify(desc, GPIO_V2_LINE_CHANGED_CONFIG);
> >
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > I wonder if there is an opportunity to consolidate? ;-)
>
> Send a patch! I would be glad to see less functions and internal APIs in
> GPIOLIB.
>
I'm definitely in favor of consolidation instead of renaming to
gpiod_go_set_debounce(). If anything a better name would be:
gpiod_set_debounce_nocheck() to indicate the actual functionality.
How about first extending gpio_set_config_with_argument() to take a
boolean "optional" argument and removing
gpio_set_config_with_argument_optional() altogether? Both are internal
to drivers/gpio/ so it would have no effect on consumers.
Bart
On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 01:15:02PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 1:00 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 01:31:35PM +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 01:16:54PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 01:11:57PM +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 12:59:25PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 11:18:04AM +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 06:00:33PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > > > > In order to reduce the 'gpio' namespace when operate over GPIO descriptor
> > > > > > > > rename gpio_set_debounce_timeout() to gpiod_do_set_debounce().
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To me anything that has '_do_' in their name sounds like an internal static
> > > > > > > function that gets wrapped by the actual API function(s).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For instance it could be
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > int gpio_set_debounce_timeout()
> > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > gpiod_do_set_debounce()
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > However, gpiod_set_debounce_timeout() or gpiod_set_debounce() sounds good
> > > > > > > to me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Then please propose the second name for gpiod_set_config_XXX to follow
> > > > > > the same pattern. The series unifies naming and reduces the current
> > > > > > inconsistency.
> > > >
> > > > > gpiod_set_config()?
> > > >
> > > > The problem is that
> > > >
> > > > gpiod_set_debounce() and gpiod_set_config() are _existing_ public APIs.
> > > > That's why I considered "_do_" fitting the purpose.
> > >
> > > I see.
> > >
> > > Hmm, we have:
> > >
> > > int gpiod_set_debounce(struct gpio_desc *desc, unsigned int debounce)
> > > {
> > > unsigned long config;
> > >
> > > config = pinconf_to_config_packed(PIN_CONFIG_INPUT_DEBOUNCE, debounce);
> > > return gpiod_set_config(desc, config);
> > > }
> > >
> > > and
> > >
> > > int gpio_set_debounce_timeout(struct gpio_desc *desc, unsigned int debounce)
> > > {
> > > int ret;
> > >
> > > ret = gpio_set_config_with_argument_optional(desc,
> > > PIN_CONFIG_INPUT_DEBOUNCE,
> > > debounce);
> > > if (!ret)
> > > gpiod_line_state_notify(desc, GPIO_V2_LINE_CHANGED_CONFIG);
> > >
> > > return ret;
> > > }
> > >
> > > I wonder if there is an opportunity to consolidate? ;-)
> >
> > Send a patch! I would be glad to see less functions and internal APIs in
> > GPIOLIB.
> >
>
> I'm definitely in favor of consolidation instead of renaming to
> gpiod_go_set_debounce(). If anything a better name would be:
> gpiod_set_debounce_nocheck() to indicate the actual functionality.
>
> How about first extending gpio_set_config_with_argument() to take a
> boolean "optional" argument and removing
> gpio_set_config_with_argument_optional() altogether? Both are internal
> to drivers/gpio/ so it would have no effect on consumers.
Consider this series as a report then, I am not going to spend time on it.
Thank you for the review.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
On Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 2:38 PM Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > > > I'm definitely in favor of consolidation instead of renaming to > > gpiod_go_set_debounce(). If anything a better name would be: > > gpiod_set_debounce_nocheck() to indicate the actual functionality. > > > > How about first extending gpio_set_config_with_argument() to take a > > boolean "optional" argument and removing > > gpio_set_config_with_argument_optional() altogether? Both are internal > > to drivers/gpio/ so it would have no effect on consumers. > > Consider this series as a report then, I am not going to spend time on it. > Thank you for the review. > No worries. I applied patch 1/3. 3/3 doesn't apply on its own so feel free to resend it if you still want it. Bartosz
On Mon, Mar 3, 2025 at 5:03 PM Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > In order to reduce the 'gpio' namespace when operate over GPIO descriptor > rename gpio_set_debounce_timeout() to gpiod_do_set_debounce(). > > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Fair enough, Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> Yours, Linus Walleij
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.