Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 27 Jan 2022 17:08:13 +0200 | From | Andy Shevchenko <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] iio: afe: iio-rescale: Re-use generic struct s32_fract |
| |
On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 12:03:49PM +0100, Peter Rosin wrote: > On 2022-01-26 14:01, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > 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. > > The bigger object, or the one and only object as the current code is > written, is given to ->props() by design. > > BTW, you don't seem to understand the ->props() functions. There is no > data "passed to" the ->props() functions. These functions instead fill > in properties. Currently this boils down to the scaling fraction, but I > can imagine other properties.
Currently the object of the properties is the same as struct __Txx_fract. In the future it may indeed be expanded. In such case I see that the layering might look like
struct ..._props { struct __Txx_fract fract; ... };
Of course it depends on the properties themselves, but at least that's how I believe the OOP paradigm works. Am I mistaken?
> On 2022-01-25 19:17, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > The bigger object would be needed > > in case of using data that is not fraction. Either way it would > > be easy to add a container_of() than supply unneeded data to > > the method. > > You argued that it is easy to "break out" to the bigger object in case > it's needed. Which in my book is a sign of poor layering. > It's way easier to *not* change things, it's perfectly fine as-is. > > The argument against making the change you propose is that it does not > make this small driver any easier to understand. It would still just > change things for the sake of changing them, and I do not see the point > of erasing the existing future-proofing when it has no cost. > > To sum up, I'm ok with introducing fract_s32 in this driver, but I > don't agree with the signature change of ->props().
Thanks for valuable comments!
I postponed the change in any case, let Liam to finish his part first, which we agreed is more important.
-- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
| |