On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 01:11:14PM +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. > > > > If we go to the road full of "if it will come XYZ then this sucks". > > The future is uncertain and neither of us may prove the current > > change good or bad in terms of the future (unknown and uncertain) > > changes. > > > > Preventing this patch to land is to tell "Oh, my design is bad, > > but I will keep it, because in the future everything may change". > > So, why don't you make this future to be now? > > > >>> TL;DR: It makes possible not to mix bananas with wooden boxes. > >> > >> Which is all good until you need to ship an apple in the box with the > >> bananas. (e.g. if you for some reason need the bananas to get ripe real > >> quick, apples produce ethylene) > > > > Really. arguments about the future changes are weak. If you have > > patches in mind, send them, We will see in practice what you meant. > > I can do one better - here are links to patches from 7-8 months ago. > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210530005917.20953-1-liambeguin@xxxxxxxxx/ > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210530005917.20953-6-liambeguin@xxxxxxxxx/ > > Or, if you prefer, the latest revisions. > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220108205319.2046348-9-liambeguin@xxxxxxxxx/ > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220108205319.2046348-14-liambeguin@xxxxxxxxx/ > > You have made review comments on that series. > > My previous arguments were based on gut feel, and I'm sorry for not > thinking of the offset in the referred series before. No problem and thanks for your comments! -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
