[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250729231948.GJ26511@ziepe.ca>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2025 20:19:48 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
Cc: "Aneesh Kumar K.V (Arm)" <aneesh.kumar@...nel.org>,
linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
aik@....com, lukas@...ner.de, Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...osinc.com>,
Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@...ux.intel.com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <Suzuki.Poulose@....com>,
Steven Price <steven.price@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 11/38] KVM: arm64: CCA: register host tsm platform
device
On Tue, Jul 29, 2025 at 06:10:45PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > +static struct platform_device cca_host_dev = {
> Hmm. Greg is getting increasingly (and correctly in my view) grumpy with
> platform devices being registered with no underlying resources etc as glue
> layers. Maybe some of that will come later.
Is faux_device a better choice? I admit to not knowing entirely what
it is for..
But alternatively, why do we need a dummy "hw" struct device at all?
Typically a subsystem like TSM should be structured to create its own
struct devices..
I would expect this to just call 'register tsm' ?
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists