From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A689E1DFF7 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2024 16:10:15 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.16 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1718035817; cv=none; b=ktUgcxAeruJY2BnC5vQsWHZt5QiLm7t3ybjA4uj0IEMGDPajfWd3NeBwOL38bXWw2XDZAJn5hdwZCLqsuSKrmbKWIKQX+wCtMiJED4Vop4LTae58v7TQgS52oS7yOWOiitsGSgalUJf0fWRI+LTppF2C6bx4r5HOxU8TjXS1Mvg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1718035817; c=relaxed/simple; bh=zgK/AqL9coZps00chRhbPw4u1IXvInrDFfThRt9iXuU=; h=From:Date:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=hptxnsYIwB0WD+uVxISNVmq6UkzWFpG8E+gLeihtnZmHk7CQRC88DYnNHawAV/QhYEHW2LEjFeN4wySMzVWZKAezDOv93D84p72resDOC2eP0UkWY/FIq27f7A3+kAkB05YTYIv0+lu/e3+UI9il6lWwuWs3tzqk7APQ1lYf4cE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=CvIQOm9+; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.16 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="CvIQOm9+" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1718035815; x=1749571815; h=from:date:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:message-id: references:mime-version; bh=zgK/AqL9coZps00chRhbPw4u1IXvInrDFfThRt9iXuU=; b=CvIQOm9+MXSaMscgAQwprwE2vtgVAyrVdQW7rOXsjPp0mwSkDssASFVM BrOZaVxUUlIIJzAsFuUaDe5hmqMgE6sRGprQ2hHLzAbNy8+MDa5eqCUCN pfIgOH/n1KLBtCXxOAMok9EL32xtRBBjHWSkwy+cv8sVlev2sqKLZ5dPa K492nsrP4Y/ljf29ay1agiCZvziI43st02OUhO5XhpNw+9hm2qvhtFHqB pmvOuWsiPoZ/lfU6kTNxuWfNDZPhav/pHOzrkWq7fF2p/kWGKd7nSWdcZ Vlz1bjDn6vWikxmFbYy1sUy9Ety63aP1tG/dyXW9WexsX1/SW0/ezC+Pp w==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: EnIrY735QLOZcqyTKwrX/w== X-CSE-MsgGUID: 5eN3ORnITS+7SXvqc2ovuQ== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,11099"; a="12000636" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.08,227,1712646000"; d="scan'208";a="12000636" Received: from fmviesa007.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.147]) by fmvoesa110.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 10 Jun 2024 09:10:14 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: iN6H8pL2TwmpyR3r7r4fpg== X-CSE-MsgGUID: Nt0pIbM5RVO31oLh89rIUA== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.08,227,1712646000"; d="scan'208";a="38955226" Received: from ijarvine-desk1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.245.247.194]) by fmviesa007-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 10 Jun 2024 09:10:12 -0700 From: =?UTF-8?q?Ilpo=20J=C3=A4rvinen?= Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 19:10:09 +0300 (EEST) To: Suma Hegde cc: platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, Hans de Goede , Naveen Krishna Chatradhi Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] platform/x86/amd/hsmp: Split ACPI and non-ACPI code In-Reply-To: <20240607133405.1211929-3-suma.hegde@amd.com> Message-ID: References: <20240607133405.1211929-1-suma.hegde@amd.com> <20240607133405.1211929-3-suma.hegde@amd.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 7 Jun 2024, Suma Hegde wrote: > Separate the probes for ACPI and non-ACPI supported platforms. > Provide a Kconfig option to select either the > ACPI or the non-ACPI (platform device based driver). > > This change is done to > - Keep the probes clean of the if else ladder > - Use dev_groups in platform driver structure, instead of using > devm_device_add_group() > + use is_visible() to enable the sysfs entries > > Signed-off-by: Suma Hegde > Reviewed-by: Naveen Krishna Chatradhi This will be quite tedious to review in the current form because it combines mass-moving of code with non-move changes. I'd expect it to be significantly easier to review if the existing functions would be copied 1:1 to the respective files first and then another change does the actual separation. You might need to add a few extra function prototypes into the header in the intermediate state but I believe it's still going to be huge win even if you'll need to remove some of those prototypes when the actual split commences in the second change. A few general comments: - EXPORTs should be namespaced. - Directly include <> headers in the individual files .c, don't mass include them through "hsmp.h" as clearly they'll be different for ACPI/non-ACPI to some extent. -- i.