On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 11:04:22AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 06:59:55PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 01:00:30PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > The GPIO ACPI helpers use a few quirks which consumes approximately 20%
> > > of the file. Besides that the necessary bits are sparse and being directly
> > > referred. Split them to a separate file. There is no functional change.
> > >
> > > For the new file I used the Hans' authorship of Hans as he the author of
> > > all those bits (expect very tiny changes made by this series).
> > >
> > > Hans, please check if it's okay and confirm, or suggest better alternative.
> > >
> > > Andy Shevchenko (4):
> > > gpiolib: acpi: Switch to use enum in acpi_gpio_in_ignore_list()
> > > gpiolib: acpi: Handle deferred list via new API
> > > gpiolib: acpi: Add acpi_gpio_need_run_edge_events_on_boot() getter
> > > gpiolib: acpi: Move quirks to a separate file
> > >
> > > drivers/gpio/Makefile | 1 +
> > > .../{gpiolib-acpi.c => gpiolib-acpi-core.c} | 344 +----------------
> > > drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi-quirks.c | 363 ++++++++++++++++++
> > > drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.h | 15 +
> >
> > All this -foo-core things look redundant to me. Why not just split it out
> > and call it gpiolib-quirks.c and put there all the quirks not just ACPI? I
> > Don't think we want to have gpiolib-of-quirks.c and gpiolog-swnode-quirks.c
> > and so on.
>
> That's might be the next step to have for all of them, but these are ACPI
> specific. In any case they can't be put to gpiolib-quirks.c due to module
> parameters. If we do that we will need a dirty hack to support old module
> parameters (see 8250 how it's done there, and even author of that didn't like
> the approach).
Hmm, how does it affect module paremeters? I thought they are
gpiolib.something as all these object files are linked to it?
At least can we drop the gpiolib-acpi-core.c rename?
