Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 19 Sep 2019 15:14:56 -0700
From:   Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Murali Nalajala <mnalajal@codeaurora.org>, rafael@kernel.org,
        linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] base: soc: Export soc_device_to_device API
Message-ID: <20190919221456.GA63675@minitux>
References: <1568927624-13682-1-git-send-email-mnalajal@codeaurora.org>
 <20190919213203.GA395325@kroah.com>
 <20190919215300.GC1418@minitux>
 <20190919215836.GA426988@kroah.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190919215836.GA426988@kroah.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu 19 Sep 14:58 PDT 2019, Greg KH wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 02:53:00PM -0700, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > On Thu 19 Sep 14:32 PDT 2019, Greg KH wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 02:13:44PM -0700, Murali Nalajala wrote:
> > > > If the soc drivers want to add custom sysfs entries it needs to
> > > > access "dev" field in "struct soc_device". This can be achieved
> > > > by "soc_device_to_device" API. Soc drivers which are built as a
> > > > module they need above API to be exported. Otherwise one can
> > > > observe compilation issues.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Murali Nalajala <mnalajal@codeaurora.org>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/base/soc.c | 1 +
> > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/base/soc.c b/drivers/base/soc.c
> > > > index 7c0c5ca..4ad52f6 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/base/soc.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/base/soc.c
> > > > @@ -41,6 +41,7 @@ struct device *soc_device_to_device(struct soc_device *soc_dev)
> > > >  {
> > > >  	return &soc_dev->dev;
> > > >  }
> > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(soc_device_to_device);
> > > >  
> > > >  static umode_t soc_attribute_mode(struct kobject *kobj,
> > > >  				struct attribute *attr,
> > > 
> > > What in-kernel driver needs this?
> > > 
> > 
> > Half of the drivers interacting with the soc driver calls this API,
> > several of these I see no reason for being builtin (e.g.
> > ux500 andversatile). So I think this patch makes sense to allow us to
> > build these as modules.
> > 
> > > Is linux-next breaking without this?
> > > 
> > 
> > No, we postponed the addition of any sysfs attributes in the Qualcomm
> > socinfo driver.
> > 
> > > We don't export things unless we have a user of the export.
> > > 
> > > Also, adding "custom" sysfs attributes is almost always not the correct
> > > thing to do at all.  The driver should be doing it, by setting up the
> > > attribute group properly so that the driver core can do it automatically
> > > for it.
> > > 
> > > No driver should be doing individual add/remove of sysfs files.  If it
> > > does so, it is almost guaranteed to be doing it incorrectly and racing
> > > userspace.
> > > 
> > 
> > The problem here is that the attributes are expected to be attached to
> > the soc driver, which is separate from the platform-specific drivers. So
> > there's no way to do platform specific attributes the right way.
> > 
> > > And yes, there's loads of in-kernel examples of doing this wrong, I've
> > > been working on fixing that up, look at the patches now in Linus's tree
> > > for platform and USB drivers that do this as examples of how to do it
> > > right.
> > > 
> > 
> > Agreed, this patch should not be used as an approval for any crazy
> > attributes; but it's necessary in order to extend the soc device's
> > attributes, per the current design.
> 
> Wait, no, let's not let the "current design" remain if it is broken!
> 
> Why can't the soc driver handle the attributes properly so that the
> individual driver doesn't have to do the create/remove?
> 

The custom attributes that these drivers want to add to the common ones
are known in advance, so I presume we could have them passed into
soc_device_register() and registered together with the common
attributes...

It sounds like it's worth a prototype.

Regards,
Bjorn