linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] soundwire: bus_type: add 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200323125437.GP72691@vkoul-mobl>
Date:   Mon, 23 Mar 2020 18:24:37 +0530
From:   Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>
To:     Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
Cc:     Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>,
        alsa-devel@...a-project.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        tiwai@...e.de, broonie@...nel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        jank@...ence.com, 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>,
        Hui Wang <hui.wang@...onical.com>,
        Sanyog Kale <sanyog.r.kale@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] soundwire: bus_type: add master_device/driver support

On 23-03-20, 11:06, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
> 
> 
> On 20/03/2020 18:17, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
> > Thanks for the quick review Srinivas,
> > 
> > > This patch in general is missing device tree support for both
> > > matching and uevent so this will not clearly work for Qualcomm
> > > controller unless we do via platform bus, which does not sound
> > > right!
> > 
> > see other email, the platform bus is handled by a platform
> > device/driver. There was no intention to change that, it's by design
> > rather than an omission/error.
> 
> I understand this partly now!
> 
> This can be probably made better/clear by:
> renaming sdw_master_device_add to sdw_master_alloc and do a
> device_initialize() as part of this function in subsequent call to
> sdw_add_bus_master() we can do a device_add(). Doing this way will avoid a
> bit of unnecessary call to device_unregister by the controller driver, tbh
> which is confusing.
> 
> If the intended call sequence for controller is this (by keeping the parent
> bus type intact):
> 
> sdw_master_alloc/sdw_master_device_add()
> sdw_add_bus_master()

why not have single bus api which does all this :)

> Then we should also remove sdw_unregister_master_driver() and
> module_sdw_master_driver() all together. Having them makes the reader think
> that they can use module_sdw_master_driver directly without any parent bus
> like platform bus in this case.

Precisely, this is one of the reasons for not liking the
sdw_master_driver! It doesnt get used by anyone except Intel.

-- 
~Vinod