On 31/10/2022 17.48, Lee Jones wrote: > On Sat, 29 Oct 2022, Hector Martin wrote: > >> On 09/09/2022 16.50, Lee Jones wrote: >>>> What's the point of just having effectively an array of mfd_cell and >>>> wrappers to call into the mfd core in the drivers/mfd/ tree and the >>>> rest of the driver elsewhere? >>> >>> They should be separate drivers, with MFD registering the Platform. >> >> Why? What purpose does this serve? I'm still confused. There's one >> parent device, which provides services to the child devices. There isn't >> one parent device which wraps a platform service which is used by >> children. This makes no sense. The platform device is the root, if it >> exposes MFD services, then it has to be in that direction, not the other >> way around. >> >> Look at how this patch series is architected. There is smc_core.c, which >> implements SMC helpers and wrappers on top of a generic backend, and >> registers with the MFD subsystem. And then there is smc_rtkit.c which is >> the actual platform implementation on top of the RTKit framework, and is >> the actual platform device entry point. >> >> A priori, the only thing that makes sense to me right now would be to >> move smc_core.c into drivers/mfd, and leave smc_rtkit.c in platform. >> That way the mfd registration would be in drivers/mfd (as would be the >> services offered to sub-drivers), but the actual backend implementation >> would be in platform/ (and there would eventually be others, e.g. at >> least two more for x86 systems). That does mean that the driver entry >> point will be in platform/, with mfd/smc_core.c serving as effectively >> library code to plumb in the mfd stuff into one of several possible >> platform devices. Would that work for you? > > Yes, sounds sensible. However, keep all of the abstraction craziness > somewhere else and fetch and share all of your shared resources from > the MFD (SMC) driver. I'm not sure what you mean by that. The abstraction (smc_core.c) *is* the shared resource. All it does is wrap ops callbacks with a mutex and add a couple helpers for finding keys. Do you literally want us to just have this in drivers/mfd? // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only OR MIT /* * Apple SMC MFD wrapper * Copyright The Asahi Linux Contributors */ #include <linux/device.h> #include "smc.h" static const struct mfd_cell apple_smc_devs[] = { { .name = "macsmc-gpio", }, { .name = "macsmc-hid", }, { .name = "macsmc-power", }, { .name = "macsmc-reboot", }, { .name = "macsmc-rtc", }, }; int apple_smc_add_mfd_devices(struct device *dev) { ret = mfd_add_devices(dev, -1, apple_smc_devs, ARRAY_SIZE(apple_smc_devs), NULL, 0, NULL); if (ret) return dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "Subdevice initialization failed"); return 0; } EXPORT_SYMBOL(apple_smc_add_mfd_devices); int apple_smc_remove_mfd_devices(struct device *dev) { mfd_remove_devices(smc->dev); return 0; } EXPORT_SYMBOL(apple_smc_add_mfd_devices); MODULE_AUTHOR("Hector Martin <marcan@xxxxxxxxx>"); MODULE_LICENSE("Dual MIT/GPL"); MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Apple SMC MFD wrapper"); Because this feels *immensely* silly and pointless. - Hector