On 30-04-20, 11:24, Bard liao wrote: > > On 4/28/2020 3:51 PM, Vinod Koul wrote: > > On 28-04-20, 08:55, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 12:19:51PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote: > > > > On 28-04-20, 08:37, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 10:01:44AM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote: > > > > > > > > That is not true for everyone, it is only true for Intel, pls call that > > > > > > > > out as well... > > > > > > > Why is it not true for everyone? How else do you get the pm stuff back > > > > > > > to your hardware? > > > > > > The rest of the world would do using the real controller device. For > > > > > > example the soundwire controller on Qualcomm devices is enumerated as a > > > > > > DT device and is using these... > > > > > > > > > > > > If Intel had a standalone controller or enumerated as individual > > > > > > functions, it would have been a PCI device and would manage as such > > > > > If it is not a standalone controller, what exactly is it? I thought it > > > > > was an acpi device, am I mistaken? > > > > > > > > > > What is the device that the proper soundwire controller driver binds to > > > > > on an Intel-based system? > > > > The HDA controller which is a PCI device. The device represent HDA > > > > function, DSP and Soundwire controller instances (yes it is typically > > > > more than one instance) > > > Then those "instances" should be split up into individual devices that a > > > driver can bind to. See the work happening on the "virtual" bus for > > > examples of how that can be done. > > Yes removing platform devices is the goal for Intel now :) Pierre & Bard > > have been diligently trying to solve this. > > > > Only difference is the means to end goal. I am not convinced that this > > should be in soundwire subsystem. > > > > Looks like folks are trying to review and port to use this bus. Makes > > sense to me.. > > https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/c5197d2f-3840-d304-6b09-d334cae81294@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > > A platform device better not be being used here, I'm afraid to look at > > > the code now... > > Well if the plan for 'virtual-bus' goes well, it should be a simple > > replacement of platform->virtual for Intel driver. Rest of the driver > > should not be impacted :) > > We can't expect when will 'virtual-bus' be upstream and it's not feasible > to wait forever. Can we move forward with current solution and switch to > 'virtual-bus' whenever it is upstream? the move from platform-device to virtual-device should happen once the virtual-bus' is accepted upstream. till then imo you should continue with current platform device and once you have virtual-bus upstream, replace it with virtual-device. Note: I am going to hold you on that :) Rest of the pieces like sdw_master_device and sysfs parts are not dependent upon this and should be sent for review and we can merge when ready, hopefully for 5.8. Thanks -- ~Vinod
