On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 05:03:16PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 05:32:07PM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 03:40:19PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > Right, so my concern is that as soon as we decide we want to pass some > > > resources or platform data through to one of the subdevices it needs to > > > move over into being a platform device and vice versa. That feels like > > > something that's going to add to the mess for some of the uses. > > > There shouldn't be a need for resources or platform data to be passed > > that way as they are all "owned" by the parent device that creates > > these. > > > I don't want to see platform devices become children of real devices > > (like PCI and USB and others), which is the goal here. platform devices > > are overloaded and abused enough as it is, let's not make it worse. > > How does this interact with the situation where someone makes a PCI > device that's basically a bunch of IPs glued together in a PCI memory > region (or similarly for other buses)? The IPs all have distinct > memory regions and other resources like interrupt lines which makes them > unsuitable for auxilliary devices as proposed, especially in cases where > there's more than one copy of the IP instantiated. There's a bunch of > PCI MFDs in tree already of admittedly varying degrees of taste, and > MFDs on other buses also use the resource passing stuff. I would like to move those PCI MFDs away from that, and into this bus instead. If there needs to have a way to pass/share resources, great, let's add it, there's no objection from me. thanks, greg k-h
