From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756378AbcFASLB (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Jun 2016 14:11:01 -0400 Received: from bh-25.webhostbox.net ([208.91.199.152]:43476 "EHLO bh-25.webhostbox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751130AbcFASK7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Jun 2016 14:10:59 -0400 Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 11:10:49 -0700 From: Guenter Roeck To: Hoan Tran Cc: Jean Delvare , Jonathan Corbet , Rob Herring , Jassi Brar , Ashwin Chaugule , Duc Dang , Loc Ho , linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, lkml , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [2/3] hwmon: xgene: Adds hwmon driver Message-ID: <20160601181049.GA10954@roeck-us.net> References: <1463415447-29903-3-git-send-email-hotran@apm.com> <20160530052507.GA25641@roeck-us.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-Authenticated_sender: guenter@roeck-us.net X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - bh-25.webhostbox.net X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - vger.kernel.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - roeck-us.net X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: bh-25.webhostbox.net: authenticated_id: guenter@roeck-us.net X-Authenticated-Sender: bh-25.webhostbox.net: guenter@roeck-us.net X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 11:00:05PM -0700, Hoan Tran wrote: > Hi Guenter, > > > > > Overall, I have to say that the code is quite complex due to the repeated > > checks for ACPI. I am close to suggest having two separate drivers, > > one for ACPI and one for non-ACPI. Any chance to separate ACPI vs. non-ACPI > > code a bit better ? > > How about create separate rx_cb functions for ACPI and non-ACPI ? Yes, that would be great if it is possible. > As almost functions are the same between ACPI and non-ACPI, I thought > keep the same driver is still OK, isn't it ? > If you can separate the ACPI code from the non-ACPI code a bit better than right now, yes. Thanks, Guenter