linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] pci: rename *host* directory to *controller*

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 28 Dec 2016 17:17:14 +0000
From:   Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@...opsys.com>
To:     Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>,
        Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@...opsys.com>
CC:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        <nsekhar@...com>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pci: rename *host* directory to *controller*

Às 4:41 PM de 12/28/2016, Bjorn Helgaas escreveu:
> On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 01:57:13PM +0000, Joao Pinto wrote:
>> Às 9:22 AM de 12/28/2016, Christoph Hellwig escreveu:
>>> On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 01:39:37PM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
>>>> As discussed during our LPC discussions, I'm posting the rename patch
>>>> here. I'll post the rest of EP series before the next merge window.
>>>>
>>>> There might be hiccups because of this renaming but feel this is
>>>> necessary for long-term maintenance.
>>>
>>> if we do this rename it would be great to get it to Linus NOW after
>>> -rc1 as that minimizes the impact on the 4.11 merge window.
>>
>> Rename it to controller is a bit vague I thing since we have the PCI Endpoint IP
>> also. Wouldn't be better to name it rc_controller?
> 
> I think Kishon's whole goal is to add PCI Endpoint IP, so he wants a
> neutral name that can cover both RC and Endpoint.
> 
> I'm not a huge fan of "controller" because it feels a little bit long
> and while I suppose it technically does include the concept of the PCI
> interface of an endpoint, it still suggests more of the host side to
> me.
> 
> Doesn't USB have a similar situation?  I see there's a
> drivers/usb/host/ (probably where we copied from in the first place).
> Is a USB gadget the USB analog of what you're doing?  How do they
> share code between the master/slave sides?
> 

The usb/host contains the implemnentations by the spec of the several
*hci (USB Host) and then you can have for example the USB 3.0 Designware
Host specific ops in dwc3 and for USB 2.0 in dwc2/.
For device purposes it uses the core/ and then some of the device functions
are extended from the gadget/ package in which you can use mass_storage and
other types of functions.

In our case in PCI we have the core functions inside /drivers/pci and the host
mangled inside host. I suggest:

drivers/pci
 drivers/pci/core/
 drivers/pci/core/hotplug
 drivers/pci/core/pcie
 drivers/pci/core/<all other files inside pci/ today>
 drivers/pci/host
 drivers/pci/dwc -> here would be pcie-designware and the specific vendor drivers
 drivers/pci/<vendorN> -> here would be the drivers for vendorN controller
 drivers/pci/endpoint -> common code
 drivers/pci/endpoint/dwc -> implementation of Synopsys specific endpoint ops
 drivers/pci/<vendorN> -> implementation of other vendors specific endpoint ops

Joao

> There's a drivers/ntb/hw/.  I don't know if "hw" is the *best* name,
> but it's short and it at least conveys the idea that this code is
> hardware-specific, not generic.
> 
>>>>  drivers/pci/{host => controller}/Kconfig           |    0
>>>>  drivers/pci/{host => controller}/Makefile          |    0
>>>>  drivers/pci/{host => controller}/pci-aardvark.c    |    0
>>>>  drivers/pci/{host => controller}/pci-dra7xx.c      |    0
>>>> ...