Re: [PATCH 2/4] mfd: intel-lpss: Utilize i2c-designware.h

[Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@broadcom.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1633 bytes --]

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


[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 4221 bytes --]