On 10/24/24 8:27 AM, Nuno Sá wrote:
> On Wed, 2024-10-23 at 15:59 -0500, David Lechner wrote:
>> Add the basic infrastructure to support SPI offload providers and
>> consumers.
>>
...
>> +struct spi_offload *devm_spi_offload_get(struct device *dev,
>> + struct spi_device *spi,
>> + const struct spi_offload_config *config)
>> +{
>> + struct spi_offload *offload;
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + if (!spi || !config)
>> + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>> +
>> + if (!spi->controller->get_offload)
>> + return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
>> +
>> + offload = spi->controller->get_offload(spi, config);
>> + if (IS_ERR(offload))
>> + return offload;
>> +
>> + if (offload->spi)
>> + return ERR_PTR(-EBUSY);
>> +
>> + offload->spi = spi;
>> + get_device(offload->provider_dev);
>
> Isn't this redundant? From what I can tell, we're assuming that the spi controller
> (of the spi device) is the offload provider. Therefore, getting an extra reference
> for it does not really seems necessary. The device cannot go away without under the
> spi_device feet. If that could happen, then we would also need to take care about
> callback access and things like that. Going this way, it would also be arguable to
> have a try_module_get().
>
> - Nuno Sá
>
>
Yes, you are right that we don't really need to take a reference to the device.
This was left over from when I made an implementation that assumed the offload
provider could be anything, not just a SPI controller.
