Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <1239901b-9b4a-53ef-be86-1aa8337e0f31@roeck-us.net>
Date:   Tue, 29 Mar 2022 13:26:25 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.7.0
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Eugene Shalygin <eugene.shalygin@gmail.com>
Cc:     darcagn@protonmail.com, Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.com>,
        linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20220327121404.1702631-1-eugene.shalygin@gmail.com>
 <20220327121404.1702631-2-eugene.shalygin@gmail.com>
 <16a36e23-bab2-4314-54ea-ff6b1011e6d7@roeck-us.net>
 <CAB95QATxYy5aj97P=S=L-kGE9dppuEbTYq=K=HGMBuZYVUBR4g@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] hwmon: (asus-ec-sensors) introduce ec_board_info
 struct for board data
In-Reply-To: <CAB95QATxYy5aj97P=S=L-kGE9dppuEbTYq=K=HGMBuZYVUBR4g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 3/29/22 12:22, Eugene Shalygin wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 at 15:44, Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>    struct ec_sensors_data {
>>> -     unsigned long board_sensors;
>>> +     struct ec_board_info board_info;
>>
>> Please explain why this needs to be the entire structure and not
>> just a pointer to it.
> 
> I marked the board_info array as __initconst assuming that this large
> array will be unloaded from memory after the init phase, while we keep
> only a single element. Is that assumption incorrect?
> 

What happens if you build the driver into the kernel and then instantiate
and de-instantiate it multiple times ?

>>> +static int sensor_count(const struct ec_board_info *board)
>>> +{
>>> +     return hweight_long(board->sensors);
>>> +}
>>
>> This function is called several times. Does it really make sense, or is it
>> necessary, to re-calculate the number of sensors over and over again
>> instead of keeping it in ec->nr_sensors as before ? What are the benefits ?
>> Unless there is a good explanation I see that as unrelated and unnecessary
>> change.
> 
> This had something to do with data deduplication. However, I need the
> count value only for looping over the sensor array, thus I can as well
> add an invalid element to the end of the array. I rushed to submit
> this driver to replace the wmi one, and it still has an artifact for
> the WMI code I'd like to get rid of eventually, which is the read
> buffer and the registers array. This will remove all the nr_ variables
> and two dynamically allocated arrays. I will understand, of course, if
> you ask to submit that refactoring separately.
> 

The rule of "one logical change per patch" still applies. If you start
intermixing parts of future clean-up efforts into current patches, you'll
see a very unhappy maintainer - especially since this change makes up
a significant part of this patch, complicates review significantly,
and makes me wonder if other unrelated changes are included that I don't
see right now due to all the noise.

Besides, at least in this patch, I don't buy the "deduplication" argument.
Keeping a single additional variable in a data structure is much simpler
and straightforward than calling hweight_long() several times. I'd call
that "complification".

Guenter