On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 6:37 AM Leon Romanovsky <leon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 01:09:55PM +0000, Saleem, Shiraz wrote: > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] Add ancillary bus support > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 12:21 PM Leon Romanovsky <leon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 05:41:00PM +0000, Saleem, Shiraz wrote: > > > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] Add ancillary bus support > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 05:09:09PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2020 10:33 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 10:18:07AM -0500, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote: > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the review Leon. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Add support for the Ancillary Bus, ancillary_device and > > > ancillary_driver. > > > > > > > > > > > It enables drivers to create an ancillary_device and > > > > > > > > > > > bind an ancillary_driver to it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was under impression that this name is going to be changed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's part of the opens stated in the cover letter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ok, so what are the variants? > > > > > > > > system bus (sysbus), sbsystem bus (subbus), crossbus ? > > > > > > > Since the intended use of this bus is to > > > > > > > (a) create sub devices that represent 'functional separation' > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > (b) second use case for subfunctions from a pci device, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I proposed below names in v1 of this patchset. > > > > > > > > > > > > > (a) subdev_bus > > > > > > > > > > > > It sounds good, just can we avoid "_" in the name and call it subdev? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is wrong with naming the bus 'ancillary bus'? I feel it's a fitting name. > > > > > An ancillary software bus for ancillary devices carved off a parent device > > > registered on a primary bus. > > > > > > > > Greg summarized it very well, every internal conversation about this > > > > patch with my colleagues (non-english speakers) starts with the question: > > > > "What does ancillary mean?" > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/alsa-devel/20201001071403.GC31191@xxxxxxxxx/ > > > > > > > > "For non-native english speakers this is going to be rough, given that > > > > I as a native english speaker had to go look up the word in a > > > > dictionary to fully understand what you are trying to do with that > > > > name." > > > > > > I suggested "auxiliary" in another splintered thread on this question. > > > In terms of what the kernel is already using: > > > > > > $ git grep auxiliary | wc -l > > > 507 > > > $ git grep ancillary | wc -l > > > 153 > > > > > > Empirically, "auxiliary" is more common and closely matches the intended function > > > of these devices relative to their parent device. > > > > auxiliary bus is a befitting name as well. > > Let's share all options and decide later. > I don't want to find us bikeshedding about it. Too late we are deep into bikeshedding at this point... it continued over here [1] for a bit, but let's try to bring the discussion back to this thread. [1]: http://lore.kernel.org/r/10048d4d-038c-c2b7-2ed7-fd4ca87d104a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
