> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ertman, David M
> Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2020 12:54 PM
> To: 'Leon Romanovsky' <leon@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; parav@xxxxxxxxxxxx; tiwai@xxxxxxx;
> netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ranjani.sridharan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Pierre-Louis
> Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; fred.oh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> linux-rdma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; dledford@xxxxxxxxxx; broonie@xxxxxxxxxx;
> jgg@xxxxxxxxxx; gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kuba@xxxxxxxxxx; Williams,
> Dan J <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx>; Saleem, Shiraz
> <shiraz.saleem@xxxxxxxxx>; davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Patil, Kiran
> <kiran.patil@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 1/6] Add ancillary bus support
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Alsa-devel <alsa-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of
> Leon
> > Romanovsky
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2020 12:26 PM
> > To: Ertman, David M <david.m.ertman@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; parav@xxxxxxxxxxxx; tiwai@xxxxxxx;
> > netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ranjani.sridharan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Pierre-Louis
> > Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; fred.oh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > linux-rdma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; dledford@xxxxxxxxxx; broonie@xxxxxxxxxx;
> > jgg@xxxxxxxxxx; gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kuba@xxxxxxxxxx; Williams,
> > Dan J <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx>; Saleem, Shiraz
> > <shiraz.saleem@xxxxxxxxx>; davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Patil, Kiran
> > <kiran.patil@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] Add ancillary bus support
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 06:06:30PM +0000, Ertman, David M wrote:
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2020 10:03 AM
> > > > To: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Cc: Ertman, David M <david.m.ertman@xxxxxxxxx>; alsa-devel@alsa-
> > > > project.org; parav@xxxxxxxxxxxx; tiwai@xxxxxxx;
> > netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > > > ranjani.sridharan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; fred.oh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> > > > rdma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; dledford@xxxxxxxxxx; broonie@xxxxxxxxxx;
> > > > jgg@xxxxxxxxxx; gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kuba@xxxxxxxxxx;
> > Williams,
> > > > Dan J <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx>; Saleem, Shiraz
> > > > <shiraz.saleem@xxxxxxxxx>; davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Patil, Kiran
> > > > <kiran.patil@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] Add ancillary bus support
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 10:18:07AM -0500, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
> > > > > Thanks for the review Leon.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Add support for the Ancillary Bus, ancillary_device and
> > ancillary_driver.
> > > > > > > It enables drivers to create an ancillary_device and bind an
> > > > > > > ancillary_driver to it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I was under impression that this name is going to be changed.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's part of the opens stated in the cover letter.
> > > >
> > > > ok, so what are the variants?
> > > > system bus (sysbus), sbsystem bus (subbus), crossbus ?
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [...]
> > > > >
> > > > > > > + const struct my_driver my_drv = {
> > > > > > > + .ancillary_drv = {
> > > > > > > + .driver = {
> > > > > > > + .name = "myancillarydrv",
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why do we need to give control over driver name to the driver
> > authors?
> > > > > > It can be problematic if author puts name that already exists.
> > > > >
> > > > > Good point. When I used the ancillary_devices for my own
> SoundWire
> > test,
> > > > the
> > > > > driver name didn't seem specifically meaningful but needed to be set
> to
> > > > > something, what mattered was the id_table. Just thinking aloud,
> maybe
> > we
> > > > can
> > > > > add prefixing with KMOD_BUILD, as we've done already to avoid
> > collisions
> > > > > between device names?
> > > >
> > > > IMHO, it shouldn't be controlled by the drivers at all and need to have
> > > > kernel module name hardwired. Users will use it later for various
> > > > bind/unbind/autoprobe tricks and it will give predictability for them.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [...]
> > > > >
> > > > > > > +int __ancillary_device_add(struct ancillary_device *ancildev,
> const
> > > > char *modname)
> > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > + struct device *dev = &ancildev->dev;
> > > > > > > + int ret;
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > + if (!modname) {
> > > > > > > + pr_err("ancillary device modname is NULL\n");
> > > > > > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > > > > > + }
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > + ret = dev_set_name(dev, "%s.%s.%d", modname, ancildev-
> > >name,
> > > > ancildev->id);
> > > > > > > + if (ret) {
> > > > > > > + pr_err("ancillary device dev_set_name failed: %d\n",
> > ret);
> > > > > > > + return ret;
> > > > > > > + }
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > + ret = device_add(dev);
> > > > > > > + if (ret)
> > > > > > > + dev_err(dev, "adding ancillary device failed!: %d\n",
> > ret);
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > + return ret;
> > > > > > > +}
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sorry, but this is very strange API that requires users to put
> > > > > > internal call to "dev" that is buried inside "struct ancillary_device".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For example in your next patch, you write this "put_device(&cdev-
> > > > >ancildev.dev);"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm pretty sure that the amount of bugs in error unwind will be
> > > > > > astonishing, so if you are doing wrappers over core code, better do
> > not
> > > > > > pass complexity to the users.
> > > > >
> > > > > In initial reviews, there was pushback on adding wrappers that don't
> do
> > > > > anything except for a pointer indirection.
> > > > >
> > > > > Others had concerns that the API wasn't balanced and blurring layers.
> > > >
> > > > Are you talking about internal review or public?
> > > > If it is public, can I get a link to it?
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Both points have merits IMHO. Do we want wrappers for everything
> > and
> > > > > completely hide the low-level device?
> > > >
> > > > This API is partially obscures low level driver-core code and needs to
> > > > provide clear and proper abstractions without need to remember about
> > > > put_device. There is already _add() interface why don't you do
> > > > put_device() in it?
> > > >
> > >
> > > The pushback Pierre is referring to was during our mid-tier internal
> review.
> > It was
> > > primarily a concern of Parav as I recall, so he can speak to his reasoning.
> > >
> > > What we originally had was a single API call (ancillary_device_register)
> that
> > started
> > > with a call to device_initialize(), and every error path out of the function
> > performed
> > > a put_device().
> > >
> > > Is this the model you have in mind?
> >
> > I don't like this flow:
> > ancillary_device_initialize()
> > if (ancillary_ancillary_device_add()) {
> > put_device(....)
> > ancillary_device_unregister()
> > return err;
> > }
> >
> > And prefer this flow:
> > ancillary_device_initialize()
> > if (ancillary_device_add()) {
> > ancillary_device_unregister()
> > return err;
> > }
> >
> > In this way, the ancillary users won't need to do non-intuitive put_device();
>
> Isn't there a problem calling device_unregister() if device_add() fails?
> device_unregister() does a device_del() and if the device_add() failed there
> is
> nothing to delete?
Sorry, hit send there unintentionally.
So, would it be best to split the unregister API into two calls as well.
ancillary_device_del()
ancillary_device_put()
?
-DaveE
>
> -DaveE
>
> >
> > Thanks
