On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 10:10 AM John Garry <john.garry@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. Well, they allow you to drop quite a few LOC ...