On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 02:56:59PM -0400, gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 03:01:09PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 05:55:38PM +0000, Ertman, David M wrote: > > > > Did any resolution happen here? Dave, do you know what to do to get Greg's > > > > approval? > > > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > This was the last communication that I saw on this topic. I was taking Greg's silence as > > > "Oh ok, that works" :) I hope I was not being too optimistic! > > > > > > If there is any outstanding issue I am not aware of it, but please let me know if I am > > > out of the loop! > > > > > > Greg, if you have any other concerns or questions I would be happy to address them! > > > > I was hoping to hear Greg say that taking a pci_device, feeding it to > > the multi-function-device stuff to split it to a bunch of > > platform_device's is OK, or that mfd should be changed somehow.. > > Again, platform devices are ONLY for actual platform devices. A PCI > device is NOT a platform device, sorry. To be fair to David, IIRC, you did suggest mfd as the solution here some months ago, but I think you also said it might need some fixing :) > If MFD needs to be changed to handle non-platform devices, fine, but > maybe what you really need to do here is make your own "bus" of > individual devices and have drivers for them, as you can't have a > "normal" PCI driver for these. It does feel like MFD is the cleaner model here otherwise we'd have each driver making its own custom buses for its multi-function capability.. David, do you see some path to fix mfd to not use platform devices? Maybe it needs a MFD bus type and a 'struct mfd_device' ? I guess I'll drop these patches until it is sorted. Jason
