On Sun, Jul 14, 2024 at 10:18:12AM +0000, Omer Shpigelman wrote: > On 7/12/24 16:08, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > [You don't often get email from jgg@xxxxxxxx. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] > > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 10:24:32AM +0000, Omer Shpigelman wrote: > > > >> We need the core driver to access the IB driver (and to the ETH driver as > >> well). As you wrote, we can't use exported symbols from our IB driver nor > >> rely on function pointers, but what about providing the core driver an ops > >> structure? meaning exporting a register function from the core driver that > >> should be called by the IB driver during auxiliary device probe. > >> Something like: > >> > >> int hbl_cn_register_ib_aux_dev(struct auxiliary_device *adev, > >> struct hbl_ib_ops *ops) > >> { > >> ... > >> } > >> EXPORT_SYMBOL(hbl_cn_register_ib_aux_dev); > > > > Definately do not do some kind of double-register like this. > > > > The auxiliary_device scheme can already be extended to provide ops for > > each sub device. > > > > Like > > > > struct habana_driver { > > struct auxiliary_driver base; > > const struct habana_ops *ops; > > }; > > > > If the ops are justified or not is a different question. > > > > Well, I suggested this double-register option because I got a comment that > the design pattern of embedded ops structure shouldn't be used. > So I'm confused now... Yeah, don't stick ops in random places, but the device_driver is the right place. > I'll look into the option of using notifier chains in this case, although > as I saw it, the notifier chains are more suitable for broadcast updates > where the updater is not necessarily aware of the identity nor the number > of the subscribers. Yes, that is right. Jason
