On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 02:38:29PM +0300, Heikki Krogerus wrote: > Hi Marcel, > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 12:24:33PM +0200, Marcel Holtmann wrote: > > > Let's not fill property.c with framework specific helper functions any > > > more! > > > > > > Those functions are completely bluetooth specific, so they do not > > > belong here. The fact that some other framework already managed to > > > slip their helpers in does not justify others to do the same. > > > > so? The firmware guys decided to put MAC addresses and BD addresses into the > > firmware. So you have to deal with that. > > I think you have misunderstood the point. > > > Moving this into the Bluetooth subsystem is as pointless. I rather keep the > > accessor function to firmware specific data in one place and not spread around > > the whole tree. Especially once this is also provided via ACPI or some other > > means. I assumed that is what the whole device_get part was suppose to > > abstract. > > Unified device property API defines a _generic_ API that can be used > by any type of device to access the device properties regardless of > the way the hardware is described. > > Any device can use device_property_read_u8/u16/u32/u64/string() > functions, but only bluetooth devices can use device_get_bd_address(). > Therefore that function does not belong to drivers/base/properties.c. Initially property.[ch] seemed the correct place to me since the device_get_bd_address() is the equivalent to device_get_mac_address(), which lives there. However I doubted to use bdaddr_t in the interface when I noticed that the other functions only use generic data types. Not a red flag but a first hint that it's probably not the right place for Bluetooth specific functions. I agree with Heikki that the Bluetooth subsystem seems a better home for this API. Cheers Matthias
