On 2025-02-04 11:20:43+0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 04, 2025 at 11:08:11AM +0100, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > On 2025-02-03 15:25:17+0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > +static void faux_remove(struct device *dev)
> > > +{
> > > + struct faux_object *faux_obj = to_faux_object(dev);
> > > + struct faux_device *faux_dev = &faux_obj->faux_dev;
> > > + const struct faux_driver_ops *faux_ops = faux_obj->faux_ops;
> > > +
> > > + if (faux_ops && faux_ops->remove)
> > > + faux_ops->remove(faux_dev);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static const struct bus_type faux_bus_type = {
> > > + .name = "faux_bus",
> >
> > Is the _bus suffix intentional?
>
> It was intentional.
>
> > Other busses don't have it.
>
> True. Naming is hard. I guess /sys/bus/faux/ makes sense, I will go
> rename it.
>
> But for the "root" device, does /sys/devices/faux_bus/ make sense, or
> should it be /sys/devices/faux/ as well? I'm now leaning toward the
> latter...
I'm leaning slightly towards the former.
But my naming skills are beyond limited.
> > > + .match = faux_match,
> > > + .probe = faux_probe,
> > > + .remove = faux_remove,
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > +static void faux_device_release(struct device *dev)
> > > +{
> > > + struct faux_object *faux_obj = to_faux_object(dev);
> > > + struct device_driver *drv = &faux_obj->driver;
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * Now that the device is going away, it has been unbound from the
> > > + * driver we created for it, so it is safe to unregister the driver from
> > > + * the system.
> > > + */
> > > + driver_unregister(drv);
> > > +
> > > + kfree(faux_obj);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +/**
> > > + * __faux_device_create - create and register a faux device and driver
> > > + * @name: name of the device and driver we are adding
> > > + * @faux_ops: struct faux_driver_ops that the new device will call back into, can be NULL
> > > + * @owner: module owner of the device/driver
> > > + *
> > > + * Create a new faux device and driver, both with the same name, and register
> > > + * them in the driver core properly. The probe() callback of @faux_ops will be
> > > + * called with the new device that is created for the caller to do something
> > > + * with.
> > > + */
> > > +struct faux_device *__faux_device_create(const char *name,
> > > + struct faux_driver_ops *faux_ops,
> >
> > const
> >
> > > + struct module *owner)
> >
> > What about attributes?
>
> What in-kernel user of this wants an attribute for such a device?
It was mostly a guess.
However drivers/video/fbdev/gbefb.c seems to be an example.
> And again, if we find one, we can make a faux_device_create_groups()
> call that takes a pointer to an attribute group structure if it's really
> needed.
Fair enough.
> > > +{
> > > + struct device_driver *drv;
> > > + struct device *dev;
> > > + struct faux_object *faux_obj;
> > > + struct faux_device *faux_dev;
> > > + int ret;
> > > +
> > > + faux_obj = kzalloc(sizeof(*faux_obj) + strlen(name) + 1, GFP_KERNEL);
> > > + if (!faux_obj)
> > > + return NULL;
> > > +
> > > + /* Save off the name of the object into local memory */
> > > + strcpy(faux_obj->name, name);
> > > +
> > > + /* Initialize the driver portion and register it with the driver core */
> > > + faux_obj->faux_ops = faux_ops;
> > > + drv = &faux_obj->driver;
> > > +
> > > + drv->owner = owner;
> > > + drv->name = faux_obj->name;
> >
> > Assuming most names are constant, this would be better with kstrdup_const().
> > Which is also used by dev_set_name() under the hood.
>
> I've now removed the additional driver, but note that this is just a
> pointer assignment, which is fine to do here as the lifespan of
> faux_obj->name outlived the driver structure's lifespan.
It outlives it because there is extra space allocated for it in faux_obj.
With kstrdup_const() that space would not be needed.
In the end it shouldn't really matter one way or another.
Thomas
