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:   Tue, 28 Jan 2020 16:52:43 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Benjamin Gaignard <benjamin.gaignard@st.com>
Cc:     broonie@kernel.org, robh@kernel.org, arnd@arndb.de,
        shawnguo@kernel.org, s.hauer@pengutronix.de, fabio.estevam@nxp.com,
        sudeep.holla@arm.com, lkml@metux.net, loic.pallardy@st.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-imx@nxp.com,
        kernel@pengutronix.de, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, system-dt@lists.openampproject.org,
        stefano.stabellini@xilinx.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] bus: Introduce firewall controller framework
Message-ID: <20200128155243.GC3438643@kroah.com>
References: <20200128153806.7780-1-benjamin.gaignard@st.com>
 <20200128153806.7780-3-benjamin.gaignard@st.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200128153806.7780-3-benjamin.gaignard@st.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 04:38:01PM +0100, Benjamin Gaignard wrote:
> The goal of this framework is to offer an interface for the
> hardware blocks controlling bus accesses rights.
> 
> Bus firewall controllers are typically used to control if a
> hardware block can perform read or write operations on bus.

So put this in the bus-specific code that controls the bus that these
devices live on.  Why put it in the driver core when this is only on one
"bus" (i.e. the catch-all-and-a-bag-of-chips platform bus)?

And really, this should just be a totally new bus type, right?  And any
devices on this bus should be changed to be on this new bus, and the
drivers changed to support them, instead of trying to overload the
platform bus with more stuff.

thanks,

greg k-h