Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-24405-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2024 07:58:28 +0000
From: Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>
To: Karel Balej <karelb@gimli.ms.mff.cuni.cz>
Cc: Karel Balej <balejk@matfyz.cz>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Duje =?utf-8?Q?Mihanovi=C4=87?= <duje.mihanovic@skole.hr>,
	~postmarketos/upstreaming@lists.sr.ht, phone-devel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] mfd: 88pm88x: differences with respect to the
 PMIC RFC series
Message-ID: <20240112075828.GI1920897@google.com>
References: <20231228100208.2932-1-karelb@gimli.ms.mff.cuni.cz>
 <20231228100208.2932-2-karelb@gimli.ms.mff.cuni.cz>
 <20240111105426.GA1678981@google.com>
 <CYBYXXCP3O1O.2M5YMCRW3SIMY@gimli.ms.mff.cuni.cz>
 <20240111152549.GL1678981@google.com>
 <CYBZKXR1F4QP.197Y9Y09Z1CLP@gimli.ms.mff.cuni.cz>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CYBZKXR1F4QP.197Y9Y09Z1CLP@gimli.ms.mff.cuni.cz>

On Thu, 11 Jan 2024, Karel Balej wrote:

> On Thu Jan 11, 2024 at 4:25 PM CET, Lee Jones wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/mfd/88pm88x.h b/include/linux/mfd/88pm88x.h
> > > > > index a34c57447827..9a335f6b9c07 100644
> > > > > --- a/include/linux/mfd/88pm88x.h
> > > > > +++ b/include/linux/mfd/88pm88x.h
> > > > > @@ -49,6 +49,8 @@ struct pm88x_data {
> > > > >  	unsigned int whoami;
> > > > >  	struct reg_sequence *presets;
> > > > >  	unsigned int num_presets;
> > > > > +	struct mfd_cell *devs;
> > > > > +	unsigned int num_devs;
> > > >
> > > > Why are you adding extra abstraction?
> > > 
> > > Right, this is probably not necessary now since I'm only implementing
> > > support for one of the chips - it's just that I keep thinking about it
> > > as a driver for both of them and thus tend to write it a bit more
> > > abstractly. Shall I then drop this and also the `presets` member which
> > > is also chip-specific?
> >
> > Even if you were to support multiple devices, this strategy is unusual
> > and isn't likely to be accepted.
> 
> May I please ask what the recommended strategy is then? `switch`ing on
> the chip ID? I have taken this approach because it seemed to produce a
> cleaner/more straightforward code in comparison to that. Or are you only
> talking about the chip cells/subdevices in particular?

I'd have to see the implementation, but the general exception I'm taking
here is storing the use-once MFD cell data inside a data structure.  If
you were to match on device ID it's *sometimes* acceptable to store the
pointers in local variables.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]