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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20201023003338.1285642-1-david.m.ertman@intel.com>
 <20201023003338.1285642-2-david.m.ertman@intel.com> <CAPcyv4i9s=CsO5VJOhPnS77K=bD0LTQ8TUAbhLd+0OmyU8YQ3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <DM6PR11MB284191BAA817540E52E4E2C4DDEE0@DM6PR11MB2841.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR11MB284191BAA817540E52E4E2C4DDEE0@DM6PR11MB2841.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 5 Nov 2020 14:00:00 -0800
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4hjCmaCEUhgchkJO7WaGQeTz8gtS2YgMtBAvoGBksvvSg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/10] Add auxiliary bus support
To:     "Ertman, David M" <david.m.ertman@intel.com>
Cc:     "alsa-devel@alsa-project.org" <alsa-devel@alsa-project.org>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
        linux-rdma <linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>,
        Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>,
        Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Ranjani Sridharan <ranjani.sridharan@linux.intel.com>,
        Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com>,
        Fred Oh <fred.oh@linux.intel.com>,
        Parav Pandit <parav@mellanox.com>,
        "Saleem, Shiraz" <shiraz.saleem@intel.com>,
        "Patil, Kiran" <kiran.patil@intel.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 11:28 AM Ertman, David M
<david.m.ertman@intel.com> wrote:
[..]
> > > Each auxiliary_device represents a part of its parent
> > > +functionality. The generic behavior can be extended and specialized as
> > needed
> > > +by encapsulating an auxiliary_device within other domain-specific
> > structures and
> > > +the use of .ops callbacks. Devices on the auxiliary bus do not share any
> > > +structures and the use of a communication channel with the parent is
> > > +domain-specific.
> >
> > Should there be any guidance here on when to use ops and when to just
> > export functions from parent driver to child. EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS() seems
> > a perfect fit for publishing shared routines between parent and child.
> >
>
> I would leave this up the driver writers to determine what is best for them.

I think there is a pathological case that can be avoided with a
statement like the following:

"Note that ops are intended as a way to augment instance behavior
within a class of auxiliary devices, it is not the mechanism for
exporting common infrastructure from the parent. Consider
EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS() to convey infrastructure from the parent module to
the auxiliary module(s)."

As for your other dispositions of the feedback, looks good to me.