linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/9] i2c: designware: Move has_acpi

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2e2f4d7e-2831-9161-9564-3d1e89511727@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 3 Aug 2023 16:43:32 +0300
From:   Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>,
        Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jan Dabros <jsd@...ihalf.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/9] i2c: designware: Move has_acpi_companion() to
 common code

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.