On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 04:43:32PM +0300, Jarkko Nikula wrote: > On 7/31/23 23:14, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 28, 2023 at 02:33:07PM +0300, Jarkko Nikula wrote: > > > On 7/26/23 00:45, Andi Shyti wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 05:30:15PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > ... > > > > > > > -int i2c_dw_acpi_configure(struct device *device) > > > > > +static void i2c_dw_acpi_do_configure(struct dw_i2c_dev *dev, struct device *device) > > > > > > Because of this dual dev pointer obscurity which is cleaned in the next > > > patch and Andi's comment below in my opinion it makes sense to combine > > > patches 1 and 2. > > > > Besides that these 2 are logically slightly different, the changes don't drop > > the duality here. And there is also the other patch at the end of the series > > that makes the below disappear. > > > > Not sure that any of these would be the best approach (Git commit is cheap, > > maintenance and backporting might be harder). So, ideas are welcome! > > > Unless I'm missing something you won't need to carry both struct dw_i2c_dev > *dev and struct device *device since struct dw_i2c_dev carries it already > and it's set before calling the dw_i2c_of_configure() and > i2c_dw_acpi_configure(). > > Also it feels needless to add new _do_configure() functions since only > reason for them seems to be how patches are organized now. > > So if instead of this in i2c_dw_fw_parse_and_configure() > > if (is_of_node(fwnode)) > i2c_dw_of_do_configure(dev, dev->dev); > else if (is_acpi_node(fwnode)) > i2c_dw_acpi_do_configure(dev, dev->dev); > > let end result be > > if (is_of_node(fwnode)) > i2c_dw_of_configure(dev); > else if (is_acpi_node(fwnode)) > i2c_dw_acpi_configure(dev); > > My gut feeling says patchset would be a bit simpler if we aim for this end > result in mind. > > Simplest patches like int to void return type conversion first since either > i2c_dw_acpi_configure() and dw_i2c_of_configure() return is not used now. > Then perhaps dw_i2c_of_configure() renaming. > > Moving to common code I don't know how well it's splittable into smaller > patches or would single bigger patch look better. Does this all mean that the series needs to be refactored?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
