Re: [PATCH v1 7/9] i2c: desingware: Unify firmware type checks

[Andi Shyti]

Hi Andy,

On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 05:30:21PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> Instead of asymmetrical checks for the firmware use is_*_node()
> calls. With that, drop now local wrappers against
> 
> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-common.c | 23 +++++++---------------
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-common.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-common.c
> index 443426474cfc..e6df6a484955 100644
> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-common.c
> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-common.c
> @@ -241,15 +241,9 @@ static void i2c_dw_of_do_configure(struct dw_i2c_dev *dev, struct device *device
>  	}
>  }
>  
> -static void i2c_dw_of_configure(struct dw_i2c_dev *dev)
> -{
> -	if (dev_of_node(dev->dev))
> -		i2c_dw_of_do_configure(dev, dev->dev);
> -}
> -

I have to partially agree with Jarkko here, the patch splitting
of this series is a bit too exotic. Series need to be understood
by reading them forward, not backward.

Oversplitting sometimes might even reduce readability and
"reviewability" (can I say so?). And this function, in seven
patches, has been added, moved and removed, and I had to read the
series twice :)

Anyway, I won't ask you to refactor the whole series, I
understand your logic.

Reviewed-by: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@xxxxxxxxxx> 

Andi