On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 01:43:41PM +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote: > On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 05:48:41PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 04:25:48PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote: > > > The current SCU IPC API has been operating on a single instance and > > > there has been no way to pin the providing module in place when the SCU > > > IPC is in use. > > > > > > This implements a new API that takes the SCU IPC instance as first > > > parameter (NULL means the single instance is being used). The SCU IPC > > > instance can be retrieved by calling new function > > > intel_scu_ipc_dev_get() that take care of pinning the providing module > > > in place as long as intel_scu_ipc_dev_put() is not called. > > > > > > The old API and constants that are still being used are left there to > > > support existing users that cannot be converted easily but they are put > > > to a separate header that is subject to be removed eventually. > > > Subsequent patches will convert most of the users over to the new API. > > > > I'm thinking now if it would be better to do this in two steps, i.e. split out > > legacy header first and then introduce new API? > > No problem doing that but I'm not sure what's the benefit over what is > done now? That's what I'm trying to figure out. Would it be? Maybe you can play with it locally and decide which one is better? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
