[PATCH 13/15] gpio: sodaville: use new generic GPIO chip API

[Bartosz Golaszewski]

On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 5:26 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 6:15 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andy.shevchenko at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 5:05 PM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl at bgdev.pl> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 4:02 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > > <andriy.shevchenko at intel.com> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Sep 09, 2025 at 03:56:41PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 3:47 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > > > > <andriy.shevchenko at intel.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > > > > TBH, I think those 6 all made the same mistake, i.e. thinking of the compound
> > > > > > literal as a cast. Which is not!
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you suggest?
> > > >
> > > > Write it in less odd way :-)
> > > >
> > > > foo = (struct bar) { ... };
> > >
> > > I don't get your reasoning. typeof() itself is well established in the
> > > kernel and doesn't
> > >
> > > foo = (struct bar){ ... };
> > >
> > > evaluate to the same thing as
> > >
> > > foo = (typeof(foo)){ ... };
> > >
> > > ? Isn't it still the same compound literal?
> >
> > It makes it so, but typeof() usually is used for casts and not for
> > compound literals. That's (usage typeof() for compound literals) what
> > I am against in this case.
>
> FWIW, brief googling showed that nobody (okay, I haven't found yet
> reddit/SO/GCC or LLVM documentation) uses typeof() for compound
> literals. So, this makes me feel right, that the form of typeof() is
> weird and works due to unknown reasons. Any pointers to the
> documentation you read about it?
>

Ok I'll change it. I also need to change it in existing patches that
already landed in next then.

> > > > > And are we not allowed to use C99 features now anyway?
> > > >
> > > > It's fine, it's not about the C standard number.
>
> E.g., https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-15.1.0/gcc/Compound-Literals.html
> (8.1.0 is the same).
>

I get it, I understood incorrectly how they work, no need to rub it in. :)

Bart