Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 3 Aug 2023 16:43:32 +0300 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1 1/9] i2c: designware: Move has_acpi_companion() to common code | From | Jarkko Nikula <> |
| |
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.
| |