Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752482AbbKPVvu (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 16 Nov 2015 16:51:50 -0500
Received: from mail-pa0-f47.google.com ([209.85.220.47]:34656 "EHLO
	mail-pa0-f47.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751465AbbKPVvs (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 16 Nov 2015 16:51:48 -0500
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 13:51:44 -0800
From: Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com>
To: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>, Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com>,
        linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
        Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-spi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: spi: OF module autoloading is still broken
Message-ID: <20151116215144.GQ8456@google.com>
References: <20151113194031.GI8456@google.com>
 <20151113221228.GT12392@sirena.org.uk>
 <20151113225113.GJ8456@google.com>
 <20151113231410.GV12392@sirena.org.uk>
 <20151113234857.GK8456@google.com>
 <564A101F.9090807@osg.samsung.com>
 <20151116192434.GO8456@google.com>
 <564A35EB.5080008@osg.samsung.com>
 <20151116204702.GP8456@google.com>
 <564A4B66.6090107@osg.samsung.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <564A4B66.6090107@osg.samsung.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 3278
Lines: 74

Hi Javier,

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 06:32:22PM -0300, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> On 11/16/2015 05:47 PM, Brian Norris wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 05:00:43PM -0300, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> >> Now that I think about it, there is another issue and is that today spi:foo
> >> defines a namespace while changing to of: will make the namespace flat so
> >> a platform driver that has the same vendor and model will have the same
> >> modalias.
> >>
> >> IOW, for board files will be platform:bar and i2c:bar while for OF will be
> >> of:NfooT<NULL>Cfoo,bar in both cases. I wonder if we should reuse the type
> >> for that and store the subsystem prefix there. What do you think?
> > 
> > I'm not sure I understand all the issues here to be able to comment
> > properly. But I bet someone else might.
> > 
> > (For me, it might help if you had a more concrete example to speak of.)
> >
> 
> From a quick look I couldn't find a real example (that doesn't mean there
> isn't one) but I'll make one just to explain the problem.
> 
> Let's suppose you have 3 different IP's blocks (i.e: pmics) from the same
> vendor. The IP's are quite similar but only differ in that use a different
> bus to communicate with the SoC.

Ah, I thought that's what you might have meant, but then I reread enough
times that I confused myself. I think my first understanding was correct
:)

> So you could have a core driver and transport drivers for SPI and I2C.
> 
> So currently you could use the not too creative compatible strings compatible
> string "acme,my-pmic" in all the drivers and is not a problem because the SPI
> and I2C subsystem will always report the MODALIAS uevent as:
> 
> MODALIAS=i2c:my-pmic and MODALIAS=spi:my-pmic
> 
> so as far as there is a "my-pmic" entry in the SPI and I2C id tables, module
> autoload will work and the match will also work since that happens per bus_type.
> 
> But if SPI and I2C are migrated to OF modalias reporting, then both I2C and SPI
> will report (assuming the device node is called pmic in both cases):
> 
> MODALIAS=of:NpmicT<NULL>Cacme,my-pmic
> 
> That's what I meant when said that the modalias namespace is flat in the case of
> OF but is separated in the case of board files and the current implementation.

Thanks for the additional explanation.

> What currently the drivers are doing is to name the model my-pmic-{i2c,spi,etc}
> but I think that the subsystem information should be explicitly present in the
> OF modalias information as it is for legacy device registration.

Lest someone else wonder whether this is theoretical or not, I'll save
them the work in pointing at an example: "st,st33zp24". See:

Documentation/devicetree/bindings/security/tpm/st33zp24-*.txt

and the code is in drivers/char/tpm/st33zp24/, sharing the same core
library, suggesting that the devices really are the same except simply
the bus.

In my limited opinion, then, it seems like a good idea to still try to
separate the bus namespaces when reporting module-loading information.

Brian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/