Hi Rafael,

On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 01:19:57PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
...

quoted

quoted

I think I agree with Rob's prior comments about making an ops struct for DT
vs ACPI.  Out of the 16 patches, 2/16, 3/16, 5/16 (multiple times), and this
patch all end up using the same construct.  Maybe it needs to be a separate
refactoring effort, but if it's happening this often just in this patch set,
it seems like it's getting time to clean things up.

As long as there are two cases only (ACPI vs DT), an ops struct wouldn't
really make things simpler and it would make the code more difficult to
follow.

But we do have a third case (static or built-in properties) and it doesn't
seem to be covered at all.

That said the ops struct could be introduced on top of this series just fine.
It even might be cleaner to do it this way, so I'm not asking for a redesign
here.

I'd like the built-in properties to be covered too, however.

That sounds good to me. 

-- 
Kind regards,

Sakari Ailus
e-mail: sakari.ailus@iki.fi	XMPP: sailus@retiisi.org.uk