On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 09:50:01PM +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote: > On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 08:16:19PM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > > On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 08:14:57PM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 07:25:37PM +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote: > > > > This patch sereis implements basic generic device / driver Rust abstractions, > > > > as well as some basic PCI abstractions. > > > > > > > > This patch series is sent in the context of [1], and the corresponding patch > > > > series [2], which contains some basic DRM Rust abstractions and a stub > > > > implementation of the Nova GPU driver. > > > > > > > > Nova is intended to be developed upstream, starting out with just a stub driver > > > > to lift some initial required infrastructure upstream. A more detailed > > > > explanation can be found in [1]. > > > > > > > > Some patches, which implement the generic device / driver Rust abstractions have > > > > been sent a couple of weeks ago already [3]. For those patches the following > > > > changes have been made since then: > > > > > > > > - remove RawDevice::name() > > > > - remove rust helper for dev_name() and dev_get_drvdata() > > > > - use AlwaysRefCounted for struct Device > > > > - drop trait RawDevice entirely in favor of AsRef and provide > > > > Device::from_raw(), Device::as_raw() and Device::as_ref() instead > > > > - implement RevocableGuard > > > > - device::Data, remove resources and replace it with a Devres abstraction > > > > - implement Devres abstraction for resources > > > > Ah, here's the difference from the last time, sorry, it wasn't obvious. > > > > Still nothing about proper handling and use of 'remove' in the context > > of all of this, that's something you really really really need to get > > right if you want to attempt to have a driver in rust interact with the > > driver core properly. > > We were right in the middle of discussing about the correct wording when I sent > those patches the first time. There were some replies from my side, e.g. [1] and > another reply from Wedson [2] about this, which you did not want to reply to any > more. > > I'm not saying I insist on not changing those comments up, but first we have to > agree on how we want them to be rephrased, especially since from the > discussions so far I got the impression that we might talk a bit past each > other. > > Hence, I'd propose to just continue the discussion, where we need to. See my responses in this thread, let's continue this there. thanks, greg k-h
