On Mon 20 Oct 00:22 PDT 2014, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2014, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > On Wed 08 Oct 01:40 PDT 2014, Lee Jones wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > > +static struct qcom_smd_driver qcom_smd_rpm_driver = {
> > > > + .probe = qcom_smd_rpm_probe,
> > > > + .remove = qcom_smd_rpm_remove,
> > > > + .callback = qcom_smd_rpm_callback,
> > > > + .driver = {
> > > > + .name = "qcom_smd_rpm",
> > > > + .owner = THIS_MODULE,
> > > > + .of_match_table = qcom_smd_rpm_of_match,
> > > > + },
> > > > +};
> > > > +
> > > > +module_qcom_smd_driver(qcom_smd_rpm_driver);
> > >
> > > I don't like this. What's wrong with the existing platform driver
> > > code?
> > >
> >
> > I started off with having smd child devices as platform drivers and had some
> > accessor functions to find the open handles that triggered the probe() and
> > register the callback with those. But this didn't feel very sane, so I did
> > implemented a custom driver struct and probe prototype to simplify writing
> > drivers.
> >
> > May I ask why you dislike this? This is how it's done in so many other places
> > in the kernel...
>
> I don't believe that's the case. All owners of their own
> module_*_driver() registration calls are busses (see below), whereas
> 'qcom_smd' is just a driver. Things would soon get out of control if
> we allowed every driver in the kernel to supply their own driver
> registration information variants.
>
I modelled this after rpmsg, with the intention of having qcom_smd provide a
"smd bus" and all client drivers sitting on that bus being probed and removed
as the remote services appear and disappear.
I'm afraid I don't understand what part I missed that makes my smd driver "just
a driver". I will reread the documentation and try to figure out what I might
have missed.
Regards,
Bjorn
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
