Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/7] pwm: rename the PWM_POLARITY_INVERSED enum

From: Thierry Reding <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2020 18:40:43 +0100

On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 02:32:25PM +0200, Oleksandr Suvorov wrote:
> The polarity enum definition PWM_POLARITY_INVERSED is misspelled.
> Rename it to PWM_POLARITY_INVERTED.

It isn't misspelled. "inversed" is a synonym for "inverted". Both
spellings are correct.

And as you noted in the cover letter, there's a conflict between the
macro defined in dt-bindings/pwm/pwm.txt. If they end up being included
in the wrong order you'll get a compile error.

The enum was named this way on purpose to make it separate from the
definition for the DT bindings. Note that DT bindings are an ABI and can
never change, whereas the enum pwm_polarity is part of a Linux internal
API and doesn't have the same restrictions as an ABI.

As far as I'm concerned this is completely unnecessary churn that's
potentially going to come back and bite us, so I see no reason to accept
this.

Thierry
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel