linux-kernel - Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH v5 08/17] soundwire: add initial definitions for sdw_master

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]

Message-ID: <820dbbcd-1401-4382-f5a2-9cdba1d6fcd5@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 2 Jan 2020 11:36:40 -0600
From:   Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>
Cc:     alsa-devel@...a-project.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        tiwai@...e.de, broonie@...nel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        jank@...ence.com, srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org,
        slawomir.blauciak@...el.com,
        Bard liao <yung-chuan.liao@...ux.intel.com>,
        Rander Wang <rander.wang@...ux.intel.com>,
        Ranjani Sridharan <ranjani.sridharan@...ux.intel.com>,
        Sanyog Kale <sanyog.r.kale@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH v5 08/17] soundwire: add initial definitions
 for sdw_master_device


>>>> A parent (such as the Intel audio controller) would use sdw_md_add()
>>>> to create the device, passing a driver as a parameter. The
>>>> sdw_md_release() would be called when put_device() is invoked by the
>>>> parent. We use the shortcut 'md' for 'master device' to avoid very
>>>> long function names.
>>>
>>> I agree we should not have long name :) but md does not sound great. Can
>>> we drop the device and use sdw_slave and sdw_master for devices and
>>> append _driver when we are talking about drivers...
>>>
>>> we dont use sd for slave and imo this would gel well with existing names
>>
>> In SoundWire parlance, both 'Slave' and 'Master' are 'Devices', so yes we do
>> in the standard talk about 'Slave Devices' and 'Master Devices'.
>>
>> Then we have Linux 'Devices' which can be used for both.
>>
>> If we use 'sdw_slave', would we be referring to the actual physical part or
>> the Linux device?
>>
>> FWIW the Greybus example used 'Host Device' and 'hd' as shortcut.
> 
> But this messes up consistency in the naming of sdw objects. I am all for
> it, if we do sd for slave and name all structs and APIs accordingly. The key
> is consistency!
> 
> So it needs to be sd/md and so on or sdw_slave and sdw_master and so
> on... not a mix of both


Well the problem is that the existing code took a shortcut and only 
modeled the slave part, e.g.

struct sdw_slave *slave = dev_to_sdw_dev(dev);

so now it's difficult to add 'sdw_slave_device' and 'sdw_master_device' 
without quite a few changes.

Would this work for you if we used the following names:

sdw_slave (legacy shortcut for sdw_slave_device, which could be removed 
in a a future cleanup if desired).
sdw_slave_driver
sdw_master_device
sdw_master_driver

and all the 'md' replaced by the full 'master_device'.