Re: [PATCH v1 1/9] i2c: designware: Move has_acpi_companion() to common code

[Wolfram Sang]

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