Hi Rafael, On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 12:00:07AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > 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. :-) Will do. I also noticed that I had accidentally merged two patches from RFC v1 to PATCH v1 sets (device property: Obtain device's fwnode independently of FW type). There's a redundant patch adding device_fwnode_handle() function as well, I'll drop that patch (the same subject). -- Kind regards, Sakari Ailus e-mail: sakari.ailus@xxxxxx XMPP: sailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- 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
