On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 09:40:52AM -0800, Elliot Berman wrote:
>
>
> On 2/15/2023 10:43 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 01:23:25PM -0800, Elliot Berman wrote:
> > > +struct gh_rm {
> > > + struct device *dev;
> >
> > What device does this point to?
> >
>
> The platform device.
What platform device? And why a platform device?
> > > + struct gunyah_resource tx_ghrsc, rx_ghrsc;
> > > + struct gh_msgq msgq;
> > > + struct mbox_client msgq_client;
> > > + struct gh_rm_connection *active_rx_connection;
> > > + int last_tx_ret;
> > > +
> > > + struct idr call_idr;
> > > + struct mutex call_idr_lock;
> > > +
> > > + struct kmem_cache *cache;
> > > + struct mutex send_lock;
> > > + struct blocking_notifier_head nh;
> > > +};
> >
> > This obviously is the "device" that your system works on, so what are
> > the lifetime rules of it? Why isn't is just a real 'struct device' in
> > the system instead of a random memory blob with a pointer to a device?
> >
> > What controls the lifetime of this structure and where is the reference
> > counting logic for it?
> >
>
> The lifetime of the structure is bound by the platform device that above
> struct device *dev points to. get_gh_rm and put_gh_rm increments the device
> ref counter and ensures lifetime of the struct is also extended.
But this really is "your" device, not the platform device. So make it a
real one please as that is how the kernel's driver model works. Don't
hang "magic structures" off of a random struct device and have them
control the lifetime rules of the parent without actually being a device
themself. This should make things simpler overall, not more complex,
and allow you to expose things to userspace properly (right now your
data is totally hidden.)
thanks,
greg k-h
