Re: [PATCH v3 3/7] pinctrl: pinctrl-generic: add __pinctrl_generic_pins_function_dt_node_to_map()

[Frank Li]

On Mon, Mar 16, 2026 at 10:37:28AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2026 at 8:08 PM Frank Li <Frank.Li@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Introduce __pinctrl_generic_pins_function_dt_node_to_map() to allow
> > passing private data and skip_npins to pinmux_generic_add_function().
> >
> > The 'skip_npins' to skip parse pins in dts because on boards MUX control
> > chip switch the whole group together, so needn't handle each pins.
> >
> > Keep pinctrl_generic_pins_function_dt_node_to_map() as a wrapper
> > calling the new helper with a NULL argument to preserve backward
> > compatibility.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Frank Li <Frank.Li@xxxxxxx>
>
> Ad attested by several reviews, the pinctrl subsystem maintainer
> strongly dislikes any use of __double_underscore_function_names().
>
> The reason I dislike it is because it is ambiguous.
>
> For example there are __compiler_intrinsics such as
> __iomem and all the stuff from <linux/compiler_types.h>.
>
> Then there are __non_atomics such as __set_bit().
>
> This means __inner_function() just adds to this mess and creates
> a big confusion for the mind.
>
> That said: in this case you're just adding a parameter, just add
> the parameter and change all of the in-tree users to pass false
> or whatever you need, these is just one (1) in-tree user anyway.

pinctrl_generic_pins_function_dt_node_to_map() directly feed to
.dt_node_to_map() callback, add parameter will impact too much.

If don't like __funciton_name(), can we use
pinctrl_generic_pins_function_dt_node_to_map_ext() or other name

Frank

>
> Yours,
> Linus Walleij