On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Rojhalat Ibrahim <[email protected]> wrote: > On Monday 08 June 2015 15:46:44 Alexandre Courbot wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Alexandre Courbot <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 8:41 PM, Rojhalat Ibrahim <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> There have been concerns that the function names gpiod_set_array() and >> >> gpiod_get_array() might be confusing to users. One might expect >> >> gpiod_get_array() to return array values, while it is actually the array >> >> counterpart of gpiod_get(). To be consistent with the single descriptor >> >> API >> >> gpiod_set_array() is renamed to gpiod_set_array_value(). >> > >> > Linus, if you are ok with this change I suggest we merge it early in >> > order to avoid conflicts as more people start using these APIs! :) >> >> Actually, Rojhalat: could you define temporary macros to ease the >> transition? Something like >> >> #define gpiod_set_raw_array gpiod_set_raw_array_value >> >> We would then take them out around 4.2, once all consumers are converted. >> > > Hi Alexandre, > > Linus already applied the patch. (He replied to my original RFC mail.)
Ah, that's perfect then. Sorry for the noise. > I am not sure those temporary macros are justified. Do you really think > there are that many out-of-tree consumers? And if so, how would we know > when all of them have converted to the new interface? After all with those > macros around, they might not even notice they are using a deprecated > interface. My intention was to avoid in-tree breakage with linux-next (we do not worry about out-of-tree consumers since they can easily update their code. And they are out-of-tree anyway). But if the patch has already been merged and is working, then I have no concern at all. Thanks for keeping up with this! -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
