Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-82287-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2024 17:21:37 -0300
From: "Ricardo B. Marliere" <ricardo@marliere.net>
To: Alex Elder <elder@ieee.org>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, 
	Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>, Alex Elder <elder@kernel.org>, greybus-dev@lists.linaro.org, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] greybus: constify the struct device_type usage
Message-ID: <xsotlft7byeu4iyyzty74dgzxtszmvyj4nuhga7qwuqc2tnubc@lp4ut22lc622>
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>
 <17e89261-d46b-4845-9fca-05dac3006a39@ieee.org>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <17e89261-d46b-4845-9fca-05dac3006a39@ieee.org>

On 26 Feb 13:50, Alex Elder wrote:
> 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.

That's what I thought too.

> 
> 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).

Indeed, this one is good as is but I thought of converting it into a
series so that they can be taken with no dependency on this one. So it
would look like:

Patch 1: move "is_gb_*()" into drivers/greybus/core.c
Patch 2: move "device_type greybus_*" into drivers/greybus/core.c
Patch 3: make "device_type greybus_*" const

But you're right. I could simply send 1 and 2 after this one has been
applied. If I were to send them separately, how would I communicate that
there's a dependency? Something like:

---
This series depends on [1].
[1]: lore://link-to-this-patch 

?

Thanks and sorry for the noobishness

> 
> 					-Alex