On 09-06-21, 12:10, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Wed, Jun 09, 2021 at 09:44:08AM -0500, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote: > > > The consensus for the auxiliary_device model was hard to reach, and the > > agreement was to align on a minimal model. If you disagree with the > > directions, you will have to convince Nvidia/Mellanox and Intel networking > > folks who contributed the solution to do something different. > > The purpose of the aux devices was primarily to bind a *software* > interface between two parts of the kernel. Then I dont think this example is valid... This example has a PCI device, which represents a DSP, HDA controller, DMICs, Soundwire links... So at least here it is hardware. > If there is a strong defined HW boundary and no software interface > then the mfd subsytem may be a better choice. More I think that might be better choice for this example, but then MFD is a 'platform device' and Greg already nacked that > For a software layer I expect to see some 'handle' and then a set of > APIs to work within that. It is OK if that 'handle' refers to some HW > resources that the API needs to work, the purpose of this is to > control HW after all. > > You might help Vinod by explaining what the SW API is here. > > Jason -- ~Vinod
