On 13-01-20, 09:22, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote: > > > On 1/12/20 11:18 PM, Vinod Koul wrote: > > On 10-01-20, 10:08, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote: > > > > > > > > > The "big" difference is that probe is called by core (asoc) and not by > > > > > > driver onto themselves.. IMO that needs to go away. > > > > > > > > > > What I did is not different from what existed already with platform devices. > > > > > They were manually created, weren't they? > > > > > > > > Manual creation of device based on a requirement is different, did I ask > > > > you why you are creating device :) > > > > > > > > I am simple asking you not to call probe in the driver. If you need > > > > that, move it to core! We do not want these kind of things in the > > > > drivers... > > > > > > What core are you talking about? > > > > soundwire core ofcourse! IMO All that which goes into soundwire-bus-objs is > > considered as soundwire core part and rest are drivers intel, qc, so on! > This master code was added to the bus: v > v > soundwire-bus-objs := bus_type.o bus.o master.o slave.o mipi_disco.o > stream.o > obj-$(CONFIG_SOUNDWIRE) += soundwire-bus.o > > and the API is also part of the sdw.h include file. That seems to meet > exactly what you describe above, no? > > git grep sdw_master_device_add (reformatted output) > > drivers/soundwire/intel_init.c: > md = sdw_master_device_add(&intel_sdw_driver, > > drivers/soundwire/master.c: > *sdw_master_device_add(struct sdw_master_driver *driver, > > drivers/soundwire/master.c: > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(sdw_master_device_add); > > include/linux/soundwire/sdw.h: > *sdw_master_device_add(struct sdw_master_driver *driver, > > So, what exactly is the issue? > > We are not 'calling the probe in the [Intel] driver' as you state it, we use > a SoundWire core API which in turn will create a device. The device core > takes care of calling the probe, see the master.c code which is NOT > Intel-specific. > > > > > > > The SOF intel driver needs to create a device, which will then be bound with > > > a SoundWire master driver. > > > > > > What I am doing is no different from what your team did with > > > platform_register_device, I am really lost on what you are asking. > > > > Again repeating myself, you call an API to do that is absolutely fine, > > but we don't do that in drivers or open code these things > That is still quite unclear, what 'open-coding' are you referring to? > > I am starting to wonder if you missed the addition of the master > functionality in the previous patch: > > [PATCH v5 08/17] soundwire: add initial definitions for sdw_master_device > > What this patch 9 does is call the core-defined API and implement the > intel-specific master driver. Yes and no, it does call things introduced in patch 8, I questioned calling probe! See below! > > > > > > > FWIW, the implementation here follows what was suggested for Greybus 'Host > > > > > > > Devices' [1] [2], so it's not like I am creating any sort of dangerous > > > > > > > precedent. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/greybus/es2.c#L1275 > > > > > > > [2] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/greybus/hd.c#L124 > > > > > > > > > > > > And if you look closely all this work is done by core not by drivers! > > > > > > Drivers _should_ never do all this, it is the job of core to do that for > > > > > > you. > > > > > > > > > > Please look at the code again, you have a USB probe that will manually call > > > > > the GreyBus device creation. > > > > > > > > > > static int ap_probe(struct usb_interface *interface, > > > > > const struct usb_device_id *id) > > > > > { > > > > > hd = gb_hd_create(&es2_driver, &udev->dev, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > static struct usb_driver es2_ap_driver = { > > > > > .name = "es2_ap_driver", > > > > > .probe = ap_probe, <<< code above > > > > > .disconnect = ap_disconnect, > > > > > .id_table = id_table, > > > > > .soft_unbind = 1, > > > > > }; > > > > > > > > Look closely the driver es2 calls into greybus core hd.c and gets the > > > > work done, subtle but a big differances in the approaches.. > > > > > > I am sorry, I have absolutely no idea what you are referring to. > > > > > > The code I copy/pasted here makes no call to the greybus core, it's ap_probe > > > -> gb_hd_create. No core involved. If I am mistaken, please show me what I > > > got wrong. > > > > 1. es2_ap_driver is host controller driver > > > > 2. gb_hd_create() is an API provided by greybus core! > > same in my code... > > > > > es2 driver doesn't open code creation like you are doing in intel driver, > > it doesn't call probe on its own, greybus does that > > > > This is very common pattern in linux kernel subsytems, drivers dont do > > these things, the respective subsystem core does that... see about es2 > > driver and implementation of gb_hd_create(). See callers of > > platform_register_device() and its implementation. > > > > I don't know how else I can explain this to you, is something wrong in > > how I conveyed this info or you... or something else, I dont know!!! > the new 'master' functionality is part of the bus code, so please clarify > what you see as problematic for the partition. I am quoting the code in patch, which i pointed in my first reply! On 17-12-19, 15:03, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote: > diff --git a/drivers/soundwire/intel_init.c b/drivers/soundwire/intel_init.c > index 4b769409f6f8..42f7ae034bea 100644 > --- a/drivers/soundwire/intel_init.c This is intel specific file... > +++ b/drivers/soundwire/intel_init.c snip ... > +static struct sdw_intel_ctx > +*sdw_intel_probe_controller(struct sdw_intel_res *res) this is intel driver, intel function! > - > - link->pdev = pdev; > - link++; > + /* let the SoundWire master driver to its probe */ > + md->driver->probe(md, link); ^^^^^^ which does this... calls a probe()! And my first reply was: > > + /* let the SoundWire master driver to its probe */ > > + md->driver->probe(md, link); > > So you are invoking driver probe here.. That is typically role of driver > core to do that.. If we need that, make driver core do that for you! I rest my case! -- ~Vinod _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
