On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:27 PM Jerome Glisse <jglisse@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 04:23:42PM -0700, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: > > > > > > On 2018-12-05 4:20 p.m., Jerome Glisse wrote: > > > And my proposal is under /sys/bus and have symlink to all existing > > > device it agregate in there. > > > > That's so not the point. Use the existing buses don't invent some > > virtual tree. I don't know how many times I have to say this or in how > > many ways. I'm not responding anymore. > > And how do i express interaction with different buses because i just > do not see how to do that in the existing scheme. It would be like > teaching to each bus about all the other bus versus having each bus > register itself under a common framework and have all the interaction > between bus mediated through that common framework avoiding code > duplication accross buses. > > > > > > So you agree with my proposal ? A sysfs directory in which all the > > > bus and how they are connected to each other and what is connected > > > to each of them (device, CPU, memory). > > > > I'm fine with the motivation. What I'm arguing against is the > > implementation and the fact you have to create a whole grand new > > userspace API and hierarchy to accomplish it. Right, GPUs show up in /sys today. Don't register a whole new hierarchy as an alias to what already exists, add a new attribute scheme to the existing hierarchy. This is what the HMAT enabling is doing, this is what p2pdma is doing.
