linux-kernel - Re: [resend/standalone PATCH v4] Add auxiliary bus support

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: <20201217211937.GA3177478@piout.net>
Date:   Thu, 17 Dec 2020 22:19:37 +0100
From:   Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>,
        alsa-devel@...a-project.org, Kiran Patil <kiran.patil@...el.com>,
        linux-rdma <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
        Shiraz Saleem <shiraz.saleem@...el.com>,
        Martin Habets <mhabets@...arflare.com>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Ranjani Sridharan <ranjani.sridharan@...ux.intel.com>,
        Fred Oh <fred.oh@...ux.intel.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
        Dave Ertman <david.m.ertman@...el.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [resend/standalone PATCH v4] Add auxiliary bus support

Hello,

On 05/12/2020 16:51:36+0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > To me, the documentation was written, and reviewed, more from the
> > perspective of "why not open code a custom bus instead". So I can see
> > after the fact how that is a bit too much theory and justification and
> > not enough practical application. Before the fact though this was a
> > bold mechanism to propose and it was not clear that everyone was
> > grokking the "why" and the tradeoffs.
> 
> Understood, I guess I read this from the "of course you should do this,
> now how do I use it?" point of view.  Which still needs to be addressed
> I feel.
> 
> > I also think it was a bit early to identify consistent design patterns
> > across the implementations and codify those. I expect this to evolve
> > convenience macros just like other parts of the driver-core gained
> > over time. Now that it is in though, another pass through the
> > documentation to pull in more examples seems warranted.
> 
> A real, working, example would be great to have, so that people can know
> how to use this.  Trying to dig through the sound or IB patches to view
> how it is being used is not a trivial thing to do, which is why
> reviewing this took so much work.  Having a simple example test module,
> that creates a number of devices on a bus, ideally tied into the ktest
> framework, would be great.  I'll attach below a .c file that I used for
> some basic local testing to verify some of this working, but it does not
> implement a aux bus driver, which needs to be also tested.
> 

There is something I don't get from the documentation and it is what is
this introducing that couldn't already be done using platform drivers
and platform devices?

We already have a bunch of drivers in tree that have to share a state
and register other drivers from other subsystems for the same device.
How is the auxiliary bus different?

-- 
Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com