Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-82268-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Message-ID: <17e89261-d46b-4845-9fca-05dac3006a39@ieee.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2024 13:50:04 -0600
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH] greybus: constify the struct device_type usage
Content-Language: en-US
To: "Ricardo B. Marliere" <ricardo@marliere.net>,
 Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>, Alex Elder <elder@kernel.org>,
 greybus-dev@lists.linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20240219-device_cleanup-greybus-v1-1-babb3f65e8cc@marliere.net>
 <cf5b2696-d7ca-40fc-856a-52f352cd270c@ieee.org>
 <ids3525jm5zkwkgizt2xtg3do37kqqtfdy5gc2cptdduexoe7r@cr4yxh3tykkh>
 <2024022553-deepness-sublevel-73de@gregkh>
 <yru2ywkyqwhg3rpyuqkkx73fxkkgsfj3vcbttnzrjq662ctrov@boh65bhxjjgo>
From: Alex Elder <elder@ieee.org>
In-Reply-To: <yru2ywkyqwhg3rpyuqkkx73fxkkgsfj3vcbttnzrjq662ctrov@boh65bhxjjgo>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 2/25/24 5:04 AM, Ricardo B. Marliere wrote:
>>>> On another subject:
>>>>
>>>> Johan might disagree, but I think it would be nice to make
>>>> the definitions of the Greybus device types as static (private)
>>>> and make the is_gb_host_device() etc. functions real functions
>>>> rather than static inlines in <linux/greybus.h>.
>>>>
>>>> It turns out that all of the is_gb_*() functions are called only
>>>> from drivers/greybus/core.c; they could all be moved there rather
>>>> than advertising them in <linux/greybus.h>.
>>> I guess it depends whether they would be used somewhere else in the
>>> future. Perhaps it was left there with that intention when it was first
>>> being developed? I agree, though. Will happily send a patch with this if
>>> desired.
>> Let's clean the code up for what we have today.  If it's needed in the
>> future, we can move the structures then.
> Sounds good to me, will send a v2 then!

I might be misinterpreting Greg's response; I *think* he
agrees with my suggestion.

In any case, please do *not* send v2 with the purpose of
including my suggestion.

If you send a v2, keep it focused on this original patch.
You can then implement the other suggestion as a follow-on
patch (or series).

					-Alex