[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200701095049.GA5988@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 10:50:49 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
Cc: Ranjani Sridharan <ranjani.sridharan@...ux.intel.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>,
Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>,
Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, nhorman@...hat.com,
sassmann@...hat.com, Fred Oh <fred.oh@...ux.intel.com>,
lee.jones@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [net-next v4 10/12] ASoC: SOF: Introduce descriptors for SOF
client
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 02:27:10PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> I wonder if SW_MFD might me more apt though? Based on Mark's remarks
> current MFD is 'hw' MFD where the created platform_devices expect a
> MMIO pass through, while this is a MFD a device-specific SW
> interfacing layer.
Another part of this is that there's not a clean cut over between MMIO
and not using any hardware resources at all - for example a device might
be connected over I2C but use resources to distribute interrupts to
subdevices.
> MFD really is the best name for this kind of functionality,
> understanding how it is different from the current MFD might also help
> justify why it exists and give it a name.
Right, it's not clear what we're doing here.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists