linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] soundwire: intel: move to auxiliary bus

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: <YMbeefn6EHIqImQK@vkoul-mobl>
Date:   Mon, 14 Jun 2021 10:13:37 +0530
From:   Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>
To:     Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     alsa-devel@...a-project.org, Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Ranjani Sridharan <ranjani.sridharan@...ux.intel.com>,
        hui.wang@...onical.com, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
        Dave Ertman <david.m.ertman@...el.com>,
        sanyog.r.kale@...el.com,
        Bard Liao <yung-chuan.liao@...ux.intel.com>,
        rander.wang@...ux.intel.com, bard.liao@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] soundwire: intel: move to auxiliary bus

On 11-06-21, 09:51, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
> Thanks Vinod for your feedback,
> 
> > > If you look at the *existing* code, we don't handle any "resources" with the
> > > platform devices, we use the platform_device_info.data to pass the link
> > > information. It's a void pointer. We do not touch the resource field in the
> > > platform_device_into at all.
> > 
> > Yes that is true I dont disagree on that part. My ask here is to make it
> > better, it can be followed up after this but I would at least like to
> > agree on the direction.
> 
> [...]
> 
> > > That's it. We did not change anything else, all the other fields are
> > > identical. We are only changing the TYPE of device and the interfaces for
> > > probe/remove but using the same information and the same device hierarchy.
> > 
> > The move in itself is okay but I dont think that should be the end goal.
> 
> What we suggested in this patch is only an iso-functionality change. I
> believe from Greg's and your feedback that there is no objection on that
> small step.
> 
> This is not the end-goal indeed. The second step would be to remove the
> intel_init.c file. I fully agree with you Vinod that this can be moved into
> the SOF driver, and we could do this in a follow-up step. We can also
> improve the partition between 'context' used by the child driver and
> information passed by the parent on SHIM registers and bases.
> 
> I think we'd need to agree on the details of the second step, Bard and I can
> work on a proposal, but I don't see a disconnect on the direction to
> simplify the interface. That's the right thing to do.

That is agreeable to me. Looking forward to updates to clean these bits
up

Thanks
-- 
~Vinod