On Tue, 2021-12-21 at 18:04 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > On 12/21/21 17:54, Greg KH wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 08:44:57AM -0800, David E. Box wrote: > > > On Tue, 2021-12-21 at 08:38 +0100, Greg KH wrote: > > > > On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 01:30:06PM -0800, David E. Box wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 2021-12-08 at 20:21 +0100, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 11:09:48AM -0800, David E. Box wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, 2021-12-08 at 19:11 +0100, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 09:47:26AM -0800, David E. Box wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2021-12-08 at 17:22 +0100, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 05:50:12PM -0800, David E. Box > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > +static struct pci_driver intel_vsec_pci_driver = { > > > > > > > > > > > + .name = "intel_vsec", > > > > > > > > > > > + .id_table = intel_vsec_pci_ids, > > > > > > > > > > > + .probe = intel_vsec_pci_probe, > > > > > > > > > > > +}; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So when the PCI device is removed from the system you leak > > > > > > > > > > resources and > > > > > > > > > > have dangling devices? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why no PCI remove driver callback? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > After probe all resources are device managed. There's nothing > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > explicitly clean up. When > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > PCI > > > > > > > > > device is removed, all aux devices are automatically removed. > > > > > > > > > This > > > > > > > > > is the case for the SDSi > > > > > > > > > driver > > > > > > > > > as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Where is the "automatic cleanup" happening? As this pci driver > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > bound > > > > > > > > to the PCI device, when the device is removed, what is called in > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > driver to remove the resources allocated in the probe callback? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confused, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > devm_add_action_or_reset(&pdev->dev, intel_vsec_remove_aux, > > > > > > > auxdev) > > > > > > > > > > > > Wow that is opaque. Why not do it on remove instead? > > > > > > > > > > This code is common for auxdev cleanup. AFAICT most auxiliary bus code > > > > > is > > > > > done by drivers that have > > > > > some other primary function. They clean up their primary function > > > > > resources > > > > > in remove, but they > > > > > clean up the auxdev using the method above. In this case the sole > > > > > purpose of > > > > > this driver is to > > > > > create the auxdev. There are no other resources beyond what the auxdev > > > > > is > > > > > using. > > > > > > > > > > Adding runtime pm to the pci driver will change this. Remove will be > > > > > needed > > > > > then. > > > > > > > > And who will notice that being required when that happens? > > > > > > > > Why is there no runtime PM for this driver? Do you not care about power > > > > consumption? :) > > > > > > Of course. :) > > > > > > There's a backlog of patches waiting for this series. One adds support for > > > the > > > telemetry device (an auxdev) on the DG2 GPU. This device requires runtime > > > pm in > > > order for the slot to go D3. But this also requires changes to the > > > telemetry > > > driver in order for runtime pm to be handled correctly. These and other > > > patches, > > > including a series to have all current aux drivers use the new drvdata > > > helpers, > > > are waiting for this. > > > > I can take the aux driver drvdata patch now, through my tree, if you > > want, no need to make it wait for this tiny driver. > > > > Feel free to send it independant of the existing patchset, and with the > > cleanup patches at the same time, should be quite easy to get merged. > > If you're going to take that one, can you perhaps take patches > 1-3 for 5.17 through your tree as well (patch 3 depends on 2/it) ? > > Note there is a v4 of this series, see please use that :) > > I assume the follow up patches are also going to need patch 3 > (the actual conversion of the driver to aux-bus). Yes. > > Here is my Ack for the pdx86 bits in patch 3: > > Acked-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> > > And patch 1 and 3 also have acks from the PCI resp. MFD subsys maintainers, > so I guess taking this all upstream through your tree is fine. Should I send 1-3 plus the drvdata cleanup patches I have to Grep? V5? > > That leaves patches 4-6, 4 is the patching adding the new > "Intel Software Defined Silicon driver" sysfs API and I would > like to take some time to thoroughly review the new > userspace API, which I don't see happening before the > Christmas Holidays, so I don't plan to merge 4-6 (which > depends on 3) until after 5.17-rc1. Understood. Thanks. > > Regards, > > Hans >