On 18/07/2018 20:29, Emanuele wrote: > I had to put this patch here because it also introduces > qpci_device_init, used by sdhci (patch 3). > > For the next version I plan to have a patch X where I rename all > occurrences of qpci_init_pc in qpci_pc_new, and a patch X+1 that > introduces qpci_init_pc (was qpci_set_pc) and the other changes. > > Should I only introduce qpci_device_init in patch 3 and the remaining > things in patch 5? > > I think the general problem here is that in some patches I create > functions that are planned to only be used only in next patches (of the > current series).
I think it's okay this way, however you should justify the changes you make to "qgraph-ify" each component. For patch 1, let's wait for Stefan's reply. Because patch 1 is introducing the infrastructure, I think it is acceptable that some definitions are introduced early as long as they have doc comments; it would make little sense to introduce get_device in patch 4 just because there are no "contains" edges until then. However, introducing the qos-test directly at the beginning is also a possibility. In either case, we need better doc comments for the function pointers in QOSGraphObject. Paolo