On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 at 18:37, Jeffrey Hugo <jhugo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 11/24/2020 9:57 AM, Loic Poulain wrote: > > On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 at 17:36, Jeffrey Hugo <jhugo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> 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. > > > > That's right I've not elaborate too much, but it's mainly to respect > > the hierarchy of devices, as it is done for other busses. The > > hierarchy is especially important for things like power management > > ordering (PM core must suspend devices before their controller, wakeup > > the controller before its devices...). Moreover it will also be useful > > for userspace (thanks to sysfs) to determine which devices are behind > > which controllers (and so determine if e.g. QMI and IP channels are > > part of the same device). > > This sounds like two relevant usecases which should be mentioned in the > commit text. Yes, thanks, going to reword the commit message. Loic
