Re: [PATCH PoC 2/3] ACPI: platform: Refactor acpi_create_platform_device()

[John Garry]

On 18/08/2022 20:41, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 2:33 PM John Garry <john.garry@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > There is commonality between acpi_create_platform_device() and
> > hisi_lpc_acpi_add_child(), in that it covers 2x main steps:
> > - Read resources for the acpi_device
> > - Create platform device
> >
> > Refactor acpi_create_platform_device() so that it may be reused by
> > hisi_lpc_acpi_add_child() to reduce duplication.
>
> ...
>
> > + * acpi_create_platform_device_ops - Create platform device for ACPI device node
>
> Not sure I understand why _ops is a suffix for the function. I would
> expect _ops to be a data struct where the ->xlate() and perhaps other
> callbacks may be collected. It may be that I have missed that portion
> in the previous discussion.

ok, maybe I can put all the members into a struct, but I don't think 
that it improves the overall code too much.

> ...
>
> > +       if (name)
> > +               pdevinfo.name = name;
> > +       else
> > +               pdevinfo.name = dev_name(&adev->dev);
>
> > +       pdevinfo.data = data;
> > +       pdevinfo.size_data = size_data;
>
> It rather reminds me of platform device registration full with this
> device info. May be what you need is
> struct acpi_platfrom_device_info {
>    properties;
>    name;
>    id;
>    ->xlate();
>    ...
> };
>
> ?
>
> ...
>
> > +struct platform_device *acpi_create_platform_device_ops(
> > +                               struct acpi_device *adev,
> > +                               const char *name,
> > +                               const struct property_entry *properties,
> > +                               void *data, size_t size_data,
> > +                               int (*xlat)(struct acpi_device *adev,
> > +                                           struct resource *res,
> > +                                           void *data, size_t size_data),
> > +                               int id);
>
> ...because this looks  a bit too much from the amount of parameters
> point of view.

ok, agreed.

But even if we improve this code, the hisi_lpc changes are quite large 
and unwieldly.

Thanks,
John