On 18/08/2022 20:41, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 2:33 PM John Garry <john.garry@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
There is commonality between acpi_create_platform_device() and
hisi_lpc_acpi_add_child(), in that it covers 2x main steps:
- Read resources for the acpi_device
- Create platform device
Refactor acpi_create_platform_device() so that it may be reused by
hisi_lpc_acpi_add_child() to reduce duplication.
...
+ * acpi_create_platform_device_ops - Create platform device for ACPI device node
Not sure I understand why _ops is a suffix for the function. I would
expect _ops to be a data struct where the ->xlate() and perhaps other
callbacks may be collected. It may be that I have missed that portion
in the previous discussion.
ok, maybe I can put all the members into a struct, but I don't think
that it improves the overall code too much.
...
+ if (name)
+ pdevinfo.name = name;
+ else
+ pdevinfo.name = dev_name(&adev->dev);
+ pdevinfo.data = data;
+ pdevinfo.size_data = size_data;
It rather reminds me of platform device registration full with this
device info. May be what you need is
struct acpi_platfrom_device_info {
properties;
name;
id;
->xlate();
...
};
?
...
+struct platform_device *acpi_create_platform_device_ops(
+ struct acpi_device *adev,
+ const char *name,
+ const struct property_entry *properties,
+ void *data, size_t size_data,
+ int (*xlat)(struct acpi_device *adev,
+ struct resource *res,
+ void *data, size_t size_data),
+ int id);
...because this looks a bit too much from the amount of parameters
point of view.
ok, agreed.
But even if we improve this code, the hisi_lpc changes are quite large
and unwieldly.
Thanks,
John
