On Wed, 2020-07-01 at 08:59 +0200, Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 10:24:04AM -0700, Ranjani Sridharan wrote: > > On Tue, 2020-06-30 at 08:32 -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 11:31:41AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 07:59:59PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe > > > > wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 09:33:17PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 09:17:33AM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > > > Ok, that's good to hear. But platform devices should > > > > > > > never > > > > > > > be showing > > > > > > > up as a child of a PCI device. In the "near future" when > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > get the > > > > > > > virtual bus code merged, we can convert any existing > > > > > > > users > > > > > > > like this to > > > > > > > the new code. > > > > > > What are we supposed to do with things like PCI attached > > > > > > FPGAs > > > > > > and ASICs > > > > > > in that case? They can have host visible devices with > > > > > > physical > > > > > > resources like MMIO ranges and interrupts without those > > > > > > being > > > > > > split up > > > > > > neatly as PCI subfunctions - the original use case for MFD > > > > > > was > > > > > > such > > > > > > ASICs, there's a few PCI drivers in there now. > > > > > Greg has been pretty clear that MFD shouldn't have been used > > > > > on > > > > > top of > > > > > PCI drivers. > > > > > > > > The proposed bus lacks resource handling, an equivalent of > > > > platform_get_resource() and friends for example, which would be > > > > needed > > > > for use with physical devices. Both that and the name suggest > > > > that > > > > it's > > > > for virtual devices. > > > > > > Resource handling is only useful if the HW has a hard distinction > > > between it's functional blocks. This scheme is intended for > > > devices > > > where that doesn't ex"ist. The driver that attaches to the PCI > > > device > > > and creates the virtual devices is supposed to provide SW > > > abstractions > > > for the other drivers to sit on. > > > > > > I'm not sure why we are calling it virtual bus. > > Hi Jason, > > > > We're addressing the naming in the next version as well. We've had > > several people reject the name virtual bus and we've narrowed in on > > "ancillary bus" for the new name suggesting that we have the core > > device that is attached to the primary bus and one or more sub- > > devices > > that are attached to the ancillary bus. Please let us know what you > > think of it. > > I'm thinking that the primary person who keeps asking you to create > this > "virtual bus" was not upset about that name, nor consulted, so why > are > you changing this? :( > > Right now this feels like the old technique of "keep throwing crap at > a > maintainer until they get so sick of it that they do the work > themselves..." Hi Greg, It wasnt our intention to frustrate you with the name change but in the last exchange you had specifically asked for signed-off-by's from other Intel developers. In that process, one of the recent feedback from some of them was about the name being misleading and confusing. If you feel strongly about the keeping name "virtual bus", please let us know and we can circle back with them again. Thanks, Ranjani
