Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 30 Apr 2020 10:27:01 +0530
From:   Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>
To:     Bard liao <yung-chuan.liao@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com, alsa-devel@alsa-project.org,
        tiwai@suse.de, mengdong.lin@intel.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ranjani.sridharan@linux.intel.com,
        hui.wang@canonical.com, broonie@kernel.org,
        srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org, jank@cadence.com,
        slawomir.blauciak@intel.com, sanyog.r.kale@intel.com,
        rander.wang@linux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/5] soundwire: bus_type: add sdw_master_device support
Message-ID: <20200430045701.GC948789@vkoul-mobl.Dlink>
References: <20200416205524.2043-1-yung-chuan.liao@linux.intel.com>
 <20200416205524.2043-2-yung-chuan.liao@linux.intel.com>
 <20200420072631.GW72691@vkoul-mobl>
 <20200423142451.GA4181720@kroah.com>
 <20200428043144.GU56386@vkoul-mobl.Dlink>
 <20200428063736.GB990431@kroah.com>
 <20200428064951.GA56386@vkoul-mobl.Dlink>
 <20200428065524.GA992087@kroah.com>
 <20200428075145.GB56386@vkoul-mobl.Dlink>
 <4ecfa01e-4ef4-5368-3a70-2bd57407d2ad@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4ecfa01e-4ef4-5368-3a70-2bd57407d2ad@linux.intel.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 30-04-20, 11:24, Bard liao wrote:
> 
> On 4/28/2020 3:51 PM, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > On 28-04-20, 08:55, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 12:19:51PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > > > On 28-04-20, 08:37, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 10:01:44AM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > > > > > > > That is not true for everyone, it is only true for Intel, pls call that
> > > > > > > > out as well...
> > > > > > > Why is it not true for everyone?  How else do you get the pm stuff back
> > > > > > > to your hardware?
> > > > > > The rest of the world would do using the real controller device. For
> > > > > > example the soundwire controller on Qualcomm devices is enumerated as a
> > > > > > DT device and is using these...
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > If Intel had a standalone controller or enumerated as individual
> > > > > > functions, it would have been a PCI device and would manage as such
> > > > > If it is not a standalone controller, what exactly is it?  I thought it
> > > > > was an acpi device, am I mistaken?
> > > > > 
> > > > > What is the device that the proper soundwire controller driver binds to
> > > > > on an Intel-based system?
> > > > The HDA controller which is a PCI device. The device represent HDA
> > > > function, DSP and Soundwire controller instances (yes it is typically
> > > > more than one instance)
> > > Then those "instances" should be split up into individual devices that a
> > > driver can bind to.  See the work happening on the "virtual" bus for
> > > examples of how that can be done.
> > Yes removing platform devices is the goal for Intel now :) Pierre & Bard
> > have been diligently trying to solve this.
> > 
> > Only difference is the means to end goal. I am not convinced that this
> > should be in soundwire subsystem.
> > 
> > Looks like folks are trying to review and port to use this bus. Makes
> > sense to me..
> > https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/c5197d2f-3840-d304-6b09-d334cae81294@linux.intel.com/
> > 
> > > A platform device better not be being used here, I'm afraid to look at
> > > the code now...
> > Well if the plan for 'virtual-bus' goes well, it should be  a simple
> > replacement of platform->virtual for Intel driver. Rest of the driver
> > should not be impacted :)
> 
> We can't expect when will 'virtual-bus' be upstream and it's not feasible
> to wait forever. Can we move forward with current solution and switch to
> 'virtual-bus' whenever it is upstream?

the move from platform-device to virtual-device should happen once
the virtual-bus' is accepted upstream. till then imo you should continue
with current platform device and once you have virtual-bus upstream,
replace it with virtual-device. Note: I am going to hold you on that :)

Rest of the pieces like sdw_master_device and sysfs parts are not
dependent upon this and should be sent for review and we can merge when
ready, hopefully for 5.8.

Thanks
-- 
~Vinod