On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 01:35:09PM +0100, Peter Rosin wrote: > On 2022-01-26 13:04, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 11:26:50AM +0100, Peter Rosin wrote: > >> It's easy to both remove and to add back "the bigger object". I just > >> don't see the point of the churn. Technically you can probably rearrange > >> stuff in probe and remove the 2nd argument to ->props() altogether and > >> chase pointers from the dev object instead. I don't see the point of > >> that either. It doesn't really make things simpler, it doesn't really > >> make things easier to read. To me, it's just pointless churn. > > > > Since you still haven't got a point the conclusions are wrong. > > The point is (I dunno how more clear to make it) is to have proper > > layering from the (current) design perspective. > > I think got the gist of it. I simply do not agree with your conclusion > about what the "proper layering" should be. And I see no real argument against it. With the patch applied I see a better structure of the code and exactly necessary data to be passed to the method. Which makes me think that current implementation is either a leftover or was something like "let's take a bigger object _just in case_", which I can't take as a proper layering. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
