On Thu, 01 Jul 2021, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Thursday, July 1, 2021, Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Thu, 01 Jul 2021, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > > On Thursday, July 1, 2021, Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, 01 Jul 2021, Hans de Goede wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > On 6/30/21 11:11 PM, David E. Box wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 2021-06-30 at 11:15 +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > > > > >> On Thu, 17 Jun 2021, David E. Box wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> Unlike the other devices in intel_pmt, the Out of Band Management > > > > > >>> Services > > > > > >>> Module (OOBMSM) is actually not a PMT dedicated device. It can > > also > > > > > >>> be used > > > > > >>> to describe non-PMT capabilities. Like PMT, these capabilities > > are > > > > > >>> also > > > > > >>> enumerated using PCIe Vendor Specific registers in config space. > > In > > > > > >>> order > > > > > >>> to better support these devices without the confusion of a > > > > > >>> dependency on > > > > > >>> MFD_INTEL_PMT, remove the OOBMSM device from intel_pmt so that it > > > > > >>> can be > > > > > >>> later placed in its own driver. Since much of the same code will > > be > > > > > >>> used by > > > > > >>> intel_pmt and the new driver, create a new file with symbols to > > be > > > > > >>> used by > > > > > >>> both. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> While performing this split we need to also handle the creation > > of > > > > > >>> platform > > > > > >>> devices for the non-PMT capabilities. Currently PMT devices are > > > > > >>> named by > > > > > >>> their capability (e.g. pmt_telemetry). Instead, generically name > > > > > >>> them by > > > > > >>> their capability ID (e.g. intel_extnd_cap_2). This allows the IDs > > > > > >>> to be > > > > > >>> created automatically. However, to ensure that unsupported > > devices > > > > > >>> aren't > > > > > >>> created, use an allow list to specify supported capabilities. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Signed-off-by: David E. Box <david.e.box@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > >>> --- > > > > > >>> MAINTAINERS | 1 + > > > > > >>> drivers/mfd/Kconfig | 4 + > > > > > >>> drivers/mfd/Makefile | 1 + > > > > > >>> drivers/mfd/intel_extended_caps.c | 208 > > > > > >>> +++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Please consider moving this <whatever this is> out to either > > > > > >> drivers/pci or drivers/platform/x86. > > > > > > > > > > > > None of the cell drivers are in MFD, only the PCI drivers from > > which > > > > > > the cells are created. I understood that these should be in MFD. > > But > > > > > > moving it to drivers/platform/x86 would be fine with me. That > > keeps the > > > > > > code together in the same subsystem. Comment from Hans or Andy? > > > > > > > > > > I'm fine with moving everything to drivers/platform/x86, but AFAIK > > > > > usually the actual code which has the MFD cells and creates the > > > > > child devices usually lives under drivers/mfd > > > > > > > > Correct. It must. > > > > > > It’s definitely not the first time you are talking about, but it may be > > the > > > first time I asked why it’s not enforced overall. Last time I have > > checked > > > it was like 5-7 MFD uses outside the MFD folder. Are you going to fix > > that? > > > > Because I can't NACK patches that weren't sent to me. :) > > > > > Hint: you may add regexp match to the maintainers database and you will see > them more often Good idea. I'll add it to my TODO. -- Lee Jones [李琼斯] Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
