On 11-05-20, 08:04, Liao, Bard wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Vinod Koul <vkoul@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 2:32 PM
> > To: Bard Liao <yung-chuan.liao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; tiwai@xxxxxxx;
> > broonie@xxxxxxxxxx; gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; jank@xxxxxxxxxxx;
> > srinivas.kandagatla@xxxxxxxxxx; rander.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > ranjani.sridharan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; hui.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; pierre-
> > louis.bossart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Kale, Sanyog R <sanyog.r.kale@xxxxxxxxx>;
> > Blauciak, Slawomir <slawomir.blauciak@xxxxxxxxx>; Lin, Mengdong
> > <mengdong.lin@xxxxxxxxx>; Liao, Bard <bard.liao@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] soundwire: bus_type: add sdw_master_device support
> >
> > On 30-04-20, 02:51, Bard Liao wrote:
> > > @@ -24,9 +24,14 @@ int sdw_bus_master_add(struct sdw_bus *bus, struct
> > device *parent,
> > > struct sdw_master_prop *prop = NULL;
> > > int ret;
> > >
> > > - if (!bus->dev) {
> > > - pr_err("SoundWire bus has no device\n");
> > > - return -ENODEV;
> >
> > This check is removed and not moved into sdw_master_device_add() either, can
> > you add here or in patch 1 and keep checking the parent device please
>
> We will set bus->dev = &md->dev in the end of sdw_master_device_add().
We need to test if this is valid or not :)
> That's why we remove the test. But now I am wandering does it make sense
> to set bus->dev = &md->dev? Maybe it makes more sense to set bus->dev =
> sdw control device.
> A follow up question is that should slave device a child of bus device or
> master device? I would prefer bus device if it makes sense.
> I will check bus->dev and parent and remove bus->dev = &md->dev in the
> next version.
the parent is bus->dev and sdw_master_device created would be child of
this and should be set as such. You can remove it from bus object and
keep in sdw_master_device object, that is fine by me.
The sdw_slave is child of sdw_master_device now and looks to be set
correct.
--
~Vinod
