Hi, On 3/30/21 11:22 AM, Alexandru Ardelean wrote: > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 11:21 AM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Hi Alexadru, Jonathan, >> >> On 3/24/21 1:55 PM, Alexandru Ardelean wrote: >>> This changeset tries to do a conversion of the toshiba_acpi driver to use >>> only device-managed routines. The driver registers as a singleton, so no >>> more than one device can be registered at a time. >>> >>> My main intent here is to try to convert the iio_device_alloc() and >>> iio_device_register() to their devm_ variants. >>> >>> Usually, when converting a registration call to device-managed variant, the >>> init order must be preserved. And the deregistration order must be a mirror >>> of the registration (in reverse order). >>> >>> This change tries to do that, by using devm_ variants where available and >>> devm_add_action_or_reset() where this isn't possible. >>> Some deregistration ordering is changed, because it wasn't exactly >>> mirroring (in reverse) the init order. >>> >>> For the IIO subsystem, the toshiba_acpi driver is the only user of >>> iio_device_alloc(). If this changeset is accepted (after discussion), I >>> will propose to remove the iio_device_alloc() function. >>> >>> While I admit this may look like an overzealous effort to use devm_ >>> everywhere (in IIO at least), for me it's a fun/interesting excercise. >> >> Alexadru, thank you for the patches. >> >> Jonathan, thank you for the reviews. >> >> To be honest I'm currently inclined to not accept / merge these patches, >> this is based on 2 assumptions from me, which might be wrong. let me explain. >> >> If I understand things correctly, the main reason for this rework of >> the toshiba_acpi code is to move iio_device_alloc() and iio_device_register() >> to their devm_ variants, converting the last users in the tree ? > > yes > well, we still have plenty of users iio_device_alloc() / > iio_device_register() inside drivers/iio > > but the toshipa_acpi driver is the more quirky user of these functions > [treewide] > > i wanted to jump on those simpler IIO cases, but i thought i would > leave those to new contributors [for a while]; > the complexity of those conversions is good enough to get some people > started to contribute changes that are a bit more useful than > checkpatch fixes, comment fixes [etc]; > > [personally] i feel that these devm_ conversions are complex enough to > maybe get people wanting to dig more into some kernel design stuff I like how you think about onboarding new people. >> This would allow these 2 iio functions to then be e.g. marked as static / >> private helpers inside the iio core, so that all new users can only use >> the devm_ versions. But if I'm reading Jonathan's reaction correctly then >> Jonathan is not planning to do that because they might still be useful >> in some cases. >> >> Jonathan have I correctly understood that you don't plan to make any >> changes to the iio_device_alloc() and iio_device_register() functions >> even if this gets merged ? >> >> Which brings me to my next assumption, Alexandru, I don't read anything >> about testing anywhere. So I'm currently under the assumption that >> you don't have any hardware using the toshiba_acpi driver and that this >> is thus untested ? > > yes, i don't have any hw to test this > >> >> The not being tested state is my main reason for not wanting to merge >> this. The toshiba_acpi driver likely does not have a whole lot of users, >> so the chances of someone running release candidates or even just the >> latest kernels on hardware which uses it are small. This means that if >> we accidentally introduce a bug with this series it might not get caught >> until say lots of people start upgrading to Ubuntu 22.04 which is >> the first Ubuntu kernel with your changes; and then at least one of the >> hit users needs to have the skills to find us and get in contact about that. >> >> TL;DR: we might break stuff and if we do it might be a long time until we >> find out we did and then we have been shipping broken code for ages... > > ack > well, i don't insist in pushing this series; Ok, lets park this series then for now, because IMHO it is just a tad too complex to merge without it being tested (and without another important reason like it being part of some larger cleanup / refactoring). Regards, Hans >>> Alexandru Ardelean (10): >>> platform/x86: toshiba_acpi: bind life-time of toshiba_acpi_dev to >>> parent >>> platform/x86: toshiba_acpi: use devm_add_action_or_reset() for >>> singleton clear >>> platform/x86: toshiba_acpi: bind registration of miscdev object to >>> parent >>> platform/x86: toshiba_acpi: use device-managed functions for input >>> device >>> platform/x86: toshiba_acpi: register backlight with device-managed >>> variant >>> platform/x86: toshiba_acpi: use devm_led_classdev_register() for LEDs >>> platform/x86: toshiba_acpi: use device-managed functions for >>> accelerometer >>> platform/x86: toshiba_acpi: use device-managed for wwan_rfkill >>> management >>> platform/x86: toshiba_acpi: use device-managed for sysfs removal >>> platform/x86: toshiba_acpi: bind proc entries creation to parent >>> >>> drivers/platform/x86/toshiba_acpi.c | 249 +++++++++++++++++----------- >>> 1 file changed, 150 insertions(+), 99 deletions(-) >>> >> >
