On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 05:35:50PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 2:41 PM Heikki Krogerus > <heikki.krogerus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hi guys, > > > > To continue the discussion started by Dmitry [1], this is my proposal > > that I mentioned in my last mail. In short, the idea is that instead > > of trying to extend the support for the currently used struct > > property_set, I'm proposing that we introduce a completely new, > > independent type of fwnode, and replace the struct property_set with > > it. I'm calling the type "software node" here. > > > > The reason for a complete separation of the software nodes from the > > generic property handling code is the need to be able to create the > > nodes independently from the devices that they are bind to. > > > > The way this works is that every node that is created will have a > > kobject registered. That will take care the ref counting for us, and > > also allow us to for example display the properties in sysfs. > > > > There are a few more details in patch 3/5 about the software nodes in > > the commit message. > > > > [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/9/17/1067 > > In private discussion I brought a concern that we exposed properties > as a part of ABI, but at the same time we have not strict rules which > might lead to ambiguous reading, e.g. there is no type exported and > thus no possibility to tell what kind of property it is. > > Examples: > 1. 0x1 and 0x1 ??? are they of the same type? > 2. 0x1 ??? is it an array or single value? > 3. 0x12345678 ??? is it string or hex? > 4. 25 ??? is it hex or decimal? > > Until these will not be solved, better to not to expose properties to userspace. I agree. I'll drop that part from my final version. Thanks Andy, -- heikki
