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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <12026357.O9o76ZdvQC@kreacher> <2657553.mvXUDI8C0e@kreacher>
 <5606189.DvuYhMxLoT@kreacher> <e9666883-3285-36a6-6278-ace219b88f3c@huawei.com>
 <CAHp75Ve-Cm43HhqqxxfmKTbC_Gkx=0aAcj0jJmA=-Nr-NT1FqQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHp75VdT1YZUQbdHupA2RmucUBSzypcPwKBgSa4=sVQAhC+Vsw@mail.gmail.com>
 <61fbd71b-9c36-345c-7aed-561b81c34259@huawei.com> <CAHp75VdxaBG8Sj3j7Wa7BrZOrn1j2eAtJMw0N8z255HwMSohYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <df8c0a5d-e950-1726-5d30-80dcc8b20ff9@huawei.com> <CAJZ5v0hv7nm57QrCYX+aX=fVoE0s0BxEpJfz+a8bsPzzSZt7+g@mail.gmail.com>
 <71dfc3cd-c2ae-8096-9280-67e77c21055e@huawei.com> <CAHp75VfqJwF4YypH3QE0MRgZAyjEMKche-4czUuiC=aTYoYwig@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHp75VfpQfBYD-AmVhbxm4tp_1EVv8xqCChYpuuRKOC=P_Y_og@mail.gmail.com>
 <050e5a2f-42b9-f851-ec6e-e2a9d3fdbe1c@huawei.com> <CAJZ5v0j++HZJfL2+0uWgDRqVeZPviaZSWyL3Yn7T2Ky=bcRQMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <752f92ba-4957-545c-51f7-7e71648d92e4@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <752f92ba-4957-545c-51f7-7e71648d92e4@huawei.com>
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 5 Jul 2022 17:34:46 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0hkiOqhWyOcd2vjj-tcyHWB-cK=Dae-3sifhRfcbKWWGg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] hisi_lpc: Use acpi_dev_for_each_child()
To:     John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jul 5, 2022 at 5:17 PM John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com> wrote:
>
> > Next, I'd look at introducing something like
> >
> > acpi_create_platform_device_ops(struct acpi_device *adev, const struct
> > property_entry *properties, const struct *platform_device_create_ops
> > *ops);
> >
> > where ops would be a set of callbacks to invoke as a matter of customization.
> >
> > Then, acpi_create_platform_device() can be defined as a wrapper around
> > the above.
> > .
>
> ok, that seems easiest. But alternatively do you see any scope to have
> that platform_device_create_ops * ops in the acpi_device struct (so that
> we don't need to create this new API)?

Well, ops and struct acpi_device have different life cycles (the
former is only needed at the init time whereas the latter lives as
long as the platform device based on it), so I'd rather keep them
separate.