Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] fujitsu-laptop: use device-specific data instead of module-wide globals
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 09:30:18AM +0930, Jonathan Woithe wrote: > Hi Michael > > On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 08:53:23AM +0930, Jonathan Woithe wrote: > > On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 09:44:40AM +0200, Micha?? K??pie?? wrote: > > > fujitsu-laptop registers two ACPI drivers that access each other's > > > module-wide structures. To improve data encapsulation and lay the > > > groundwork for separating the two aforementioned ACPI drivers into > > > separate modules, move away from module-wide global data structures by > > > using device-specific data instead. > > > : > > > > I have had a quick look through this series. To my eye it addresses the > > outcome of our discussion over the last couple of weeks, and looks good. I > > had one query regarding patch 5/8, but that might just be a case of me not > > knowing about a subtlety of WARN_ONCE(). In any case this isn't a major > > issue and would be easily resolved if needed. > > > > Once I get feedback on patch 5/8 (and after seeing any additional comments > > from Darren et al) I can send through a reviewed-by. > > With the minor query in 5.8 sorted, I'm happy to proceed with this (subject > of course to any further comments from Darren or Andy). While not an > endpoint in and of itslef, it is never-the-less an important step towards > the agreed goal to separate the fujitsu-laptop module into two drivers. > This is motivated by the current use of two ACPI devices by the single > fujitsu-laptop module, which is inconsistent with the kernel's "one driver > per module" approach. > > Reviewed-by: Jonathan Woithe Apologies for the delay gents. Reviewed and pushed to testing. -- Darren Hart VMware Open Source Technology Center
Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] fujitsu-laptop: use device-specific data instead of module-wide globals
Hi Michael On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 08:53:23AM +0930, Jonathan Woithe wrote: > On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 09:44:40AM +0200, Micha?? K??pie?? wrote: > > fujitsu-laptop registers two ACPI drivers that access each other's > > module-wide structures. To improve data encapsulation and lay the > > groundwork for separating the two aforementioned ACPI drivers into > > separate modules, move away from module-wide global data structures by > > using device-specific data instead. > > : > > I have had a quick look through this series. To my eye it addresses the > outcome of our discussion over the last couple of weeks, and looks good. I > had one query regarding patch 5/8, but that might just be a case of me not > knowing about a subtlety of WARN_ONCE(). In any case this isn't a major > issue and would be easily resolved if needed. > > Once I get feedback on patch 5/8 (and after seeing any additional comments > from Darren et al) I can send through a reviewed-by. With the minor query in 5.8 sorted, I'm happy to proceed with this (subject of course to any further comments from Darren or Andy). While not an endpoint in and of itslef, it is never-the-less an important step towards the agreed goal to separate the fujitsu-laptop module into two drivers. This is motivated by the current use of two ACPI devices by the single fujitsu-laptop module, which is inconsistent with the kernel's "one driver per module" approach. Reviewed-by: Jonathan Woithe Regards jonathan
Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] fujitsu-laptop: use device-specific data instead of module-wide globals
Hi Michael On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 09:44:40AM +0200, Micha?? K??pie?? wrote: > fujitsu-laptop registers two ACPI drivers that access each other's > module-wide structures. To improve data encapsulation and lay the > groundwork for separating the two aforementioned ACPI drivers into > separate modules, move away from module-wide global data structures by > using device-specific data instead. > : I have had a quick look through this series. To my eye it addresses the outcome of our discussion over the last couple of weeks, and looks good. I had one query regarding patch 5/8, but that might just be a case of me not knowing about a subtlety of WARN_ONCE(). In any case this isn't a major issue and would be easily resolved if needed. Once I get feedback on patch 5/8 (and after seeing any additional comments from Darren et al) I can send through a reviewed-by. Regards jonathan
