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

[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

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature