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: <2e2f4d7e-2831-9161-9564-3d1e89511727@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 3 Aug 2023 16:43:32 +0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Firefox/102.0 Thunderbird/102.13.1
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/9] i2c: designware: Move has_acpi_companion() to
 common code
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@kernel.org>,
        Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa@kernel.org>, linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
        Jan Dabros <jsd@semihalf.com>
References: <20230725143023.86325-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
 <20230725143023.86325-2-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
 <20230725214521.zxjqinryvva2zanx@intel.intel>
 <928d54c4-ec71-5f09-ed66-5f9c52aca6ba@linux.intel.com>
 <ZMgWJY3w/HhsZvVd@smile.fi.intel.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From:   Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@linux.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZMgWJY3w/HhsZvVd@smile.fi.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

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.