On 11/24/2020 9:18 AM, Loic Poulain wrote:
A MHI client device should be child of the MHI controller device.
Today both MHI controller and its MHI clients are direct children
of the same bus device. This patch fixes the hierarchy.
Why?
I'm not particularly arguing for or against this change (I think it
affects me slightly, but not in a breaking way), but this commit text
seems pretty generic. It doesn't really help me understand the
relevance of this change. It seems to be only describing what you are
doing, but not the why. How did you find this? How does this affect
the client drivers? Does it make something the client drivers care
about better?
To put this another way, "should" is an opinion, and you've provided no
facts to assert why your opinion is superior to others.
Signed-off-by: Loic Poulain <loic.poulain@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
v2: fix commit message
drivers/bus/mhi/core/init.c | 10 +++++++++-
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/bus/mhi/core/init.c b/drivers/bus/mhi/core/init.c
index 436221c..c7a7354 100644
--- a/drivers/bus/mhi/core/init.c
+++ b/drivers/bus/mhi/core/init.c
@@ -1137,7 +1137,15 @@ struct mhi_device *mhi_alloc_device(struct mhi_controller *mhi_cntrl)
device_initialize(dev);
dev->bus = &mhi_bus_type;
dev->release = mhi_release_device;
- dev->parent = mhi_cntrl->cntrl_dev;
+
+ if (mhi_cntrl->mhi_dev) {
+ /* for MHI client devices, parent is the MHI controller device */
+ dev->parent = &mhi_cntrl->mhi_dev->dev;
+ } else {
+ /* for MHI controller device, parent is the bus device (e.g. pci device) */
+ dev->parent = mhi_cntrl->cntrl_dev;
+ }
+
mhi_dev->mhi_cntrl = mhi_cntrl;
mhi_dev->dev_wake = 0;
--
Jeffrey Hugo
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the
Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
