On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 9:17 AM, Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Rafael, > > On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 01:19:57PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > ... >> > > I think I agree with Rob's prior comments about making an ops struct for DT >> > > vs ACPI. Out of the 16 patches, 2/16, 3/16, 5/16 (multiple times), and this >> > > patch all end up using the same construct. Maybe it needs to be a separate >> > > refactoring effort, but if it's happening this often just in this patch set, >> > > it seems like it's getting time to clean things up. >> > >> > As long as there are two cases only (ACPI vs DT), an ops struct wouldn't >> > really make things simpler and it would make the code more difficult to >> > follow. >> > >> > But we do have a third case (static or built-in properties) and it doesn't >> > seem to be covered at all. >> >> That said the ops struct could be introduced on top of this series just fine. >> It even might be cleaner to do it this way, so I'm not asking for a redesign >> here. >> >> I'd like the built-in properties to be covered too, however. > > That sounds good to me. OK Please update the patches to built-in properties into account, then. :-) Thanks, Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
