On 05/10/17 12:20, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> +
>>>> +static struct platform_driver scmi_cpufreq_platdrv = {
>>>> + .driver = {
>>>> + .name = "scmi-cpufreq",
>>>> + },
>>>> + .probe = scmi_cpufreq_probe,
>>>> + .remove = scmi_cpufreq_remove,
>>>> +};
>>>
>>> You appear to have split this driver into the 'cpufreq' side and
>>> the 'protocol' handler in a different file. I already commented that
>>> the way the main scmi driver knows about all the protocols looks
>>> bad, here we can see another aspect of the same problem.
>>>
>>> Rather than manually register a platform_device for the purpose
>>> of connecting it to the cpufreq driver, there should be a way
>>> to dynamically register the protocol from the cpufreq driver
>>> and then have both in the same file.
>>>
>>
>> I agree that should be possible. I took this approach for 2 reasons:
>>
>> 1. to avoid all sorts of probe ordering issues
>> 2. we may have system with multiple instances of SCMI. E.g. a system
>> may have multiple remote processors, each controlling dvfs/power mgmt
>> of a subset of CPUs/devices controller in OS.
>>
>> I have to admit that I haven't thought too much in details yet. That's
>> the main idea behind scmi_handle and restricting access to that only to
>> sub-nodes in it. I am open to suggestions.
>
> How about introducing a separate bus_type for protocols?
> The platform_device you use here isn't really the best abstraction,
> and with a new bus_type, you can handle multiple instances of
> scmi as well as decoupling them from the protocol drivers.
>
Yes based on some discussion on this thread yesterday, I started
exploring and seem to have come to same conclusions. I will try to hack
and see how that evolves. Thanks for the suggestion.
--
Regards,
Sudeep
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
