Re: [PATCH] [RFC] gpiolib: introduce gpio_name() helper
Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.linux-mmc,org.freedesktop.lists.dri-devel,org.infradead.lists.linux-arm-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-bluetooth,org.kernel.vger.linux-gpio,org.kernel.vger.linux-i2c,org.kernel.vger.linux-iio,org.kernel.vger.linux-input,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-pm,org.kernel.vger.linux-usb |
|---|---|
| Organization | Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - c/o Alberga Business Park, 6 krs, Bertel Jungin Aukio 5, 02600 Espoo |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Mon, Jun 29, 2026 at 03:56:29PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> Most remaining users of desc_to_gpio() only call it for printing debug
> information.
>
> Replace this with a new gpiod_name() helper that returns the
> gpio_desc->name string after checking the gpio_desc pointer.
Oh, that's nice!
...
> +/**
> + * gpiod_name() - get a name to print for a gpio descriptor
> + * @desc: gpio or NULL pointer to query
> + *
> + * Returns:
> + * The desc->name field or a dummy string for unknown GPIOs.
> + */
> +const char *gpiod_name(const struct gpio_desc *desc)
> +{
> + return desc ? desc->name : "(no gpio)";
Can we get into here with wrong (error pointer descriptor)? Shouldn't you call
one of validate_desc() / VALIDATE_DESC()?
Also not sure if "(no gpio)" is a good choice. "not requested"? "not provided"?
> +}
...
> +static inline const char *gpiod_name(const struct gpio_desc *desc)
> +{
> + WARN_ON(desc);
> + return "(no gpio)";
Hmm... This will be a second copy with a slight potential of going apart from
the other case. Perhaps a #define? (Yes, yes, I understand that there are pros
and cons, in particular readability with define is questionable.)
> +}
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko