On 11-06-21, 09:51, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote: > Thanks Vinod for your feedback, > > > > If you look at the *existing* code, we don't handle any "resources" with the > > > platform devices, we use the platform_device_info.data to pass the link > > > information. It's a void pointer. We do not touch the resource field in the > > > platform_device_into at all. > > > > Yes that is true I dont disagree on that part. My ask here is to make it > > better, it can be followed up after this but I would at least like to > > agree on the direction. > > [...] > > > > That's it. We did not change anything else, all the other fields are > > > identical. We are only changing the TYPE of device and the interfaces for > > > probe/remove but using the same information and the same device hierarchy. > > > > The move in itself is okay but I dont think that should be the end goal. > > What we suggested in this patch is only an iso-functionality change. I > believe from Greg's and your feedback that there is no objection on that > small step. > > This is not the end-goal indeed. The second step would be to remove the > intel_init.c file. I fully agree with you Vinod that this can be moved into > the SOF driver, and we could do this in a follow-up step. We can also > improve the partition between 'context' used by the child driver and > information passed by the parent on SHIM registers and bases. > > I think we'd need to agree on the details of the second step, Bard and I can > work on a proposal, but I don't see a disconnect on the direction to > simplify the interface. That's the right thing to do. That is agreeable to me. Looking forward to updates to clean these bits up Thanks -- ~Vinod
