Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:f347:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id d7csp2425748pxu; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 13:00:15 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwOodUwDufGLhXi1ofvC/l64ry1jd/MEwjpQPQqWr7NwbncmvXxjKqib2+WIW5sqwb/Adyi X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:3b4d:: with SMTP id h13mr5780362ejf.289.1608325215534; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 13:00:15 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id e20si5722965edr.71.2020.12.18.12.59.53; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 13:00:15 -0800 (PST) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@nvidia.com header.s=n1 header.b=e4U24Cpk; arc=fail (signature failed); spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=nvidia.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1725924AbgLRU7o (ORCPT + 99 others); Fri, 18 Dec 2020 15:59:44 -0500 Received: from nat-hk.nvidia.com ([203.18.50.4]:62787 "EHLO nat-hk.nvidia.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725836AbgLRU7n (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Dec 2020 15:59:43 -0500 Received: from HKMAIL102.nvidia.com (Not Verified[10.18.92.9]) by nat-hk.nvidia.com (using TLS: TLSv1.2, AES256-SHA) id ; Sat, 19 Dec 2020 04:59:01 +0800 Received: from HKMAIL104.nvidia.com (10.18.16.13) by HKMAIL102.nvidia.com (10.18.16.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 20:59:00 +0000 Received: from NAM11-CO1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (104.47.56.176) by HKMAIL104.nvidia.com (10.18.16.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 20:59:00 +0000 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=JGrbTCunII8mPTrhgoBTw/61f7RDYJe8UwipAbQA457oKdi12GwCdewc8kpYzeMAhRbHncnaZeqbp8qhsCpzryNOOMpCFLseuSDyPwVoTWdwaThxUB6G7WiQcr5RpAyp45Z2mVKKfQ8ZxfbTZX0wGKhvMytghd8h490v1WOP8ZbyaOFJ+Dwuz/vf7vI32VZb4CbSuwQ/sIoiiDX/Nvj2UTjxh/BR+7F6G6akvndRWbiSUyKwCV5Wr34xwfzM0Lxnoz7nRNJH5+X2maeM1OytktHBvoApB3IQgkRLZ7MqkaB8fdSMFQ9mD/JbuCthVJByWcpXQs4szaYhGN0d0LZWOg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=IDI5Cvx/QMGqhJCQkIPCkWYEOEwvb1t/i3GIrRAP0jE=; b=d1XIhdVhDPfoKRtu0NO2Xf+Drb+s/9Ya41Tsi9y9X8HNn9ZDTHsaGEfuhKGKdKpfMw9+4MuA9CkvN2Phiq82vpObFyFG6ZhmM7bcc4WAS6oxJtVLaX1/0SnRBjjSNjc4oCuPI6MCCUW2Pb8j2UAkEsE/iC6h6TzoKgiaclVBI7chvpYlWT/9tMRxzTbYHsDh/zTC1kKLvY//4vBynYAeQoX8BUgWxqbj9xX3+Cr2RItrVh475GdssbU9vyzYc46keBjTlL6foJGUVHP2HeKitTmg9EebV5pnqkIonhs/Ts/FLHRpBteDVjh4Zgq9j193Miu7MX5pNuUKqwGVRYm+Hw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=nvidia.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=nvidia.com; dkim=pass header.d=nvidia.com; arc=none Received: from DM6PR12MB3834.namprd12.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:5:14a::12) by DM5PR12MB1660.namprd12.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:4:9::22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3654.20; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 20:58:58 +0000 Received: from DM6PR12MB3834.namprd12.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::546d:512c:72fa:4727]) by DM6PR12MB3834.namprd12.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::546d:512c:72fa:4727%7]) with mapi id 15.20.3676.025; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 20:58:57 +0000 Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2020 16:58:56 -0400 From: Jason Gunthorpe To: Mark Brown CC: Greg KH , Alexandre Belloni , Dan Williams , Pierre-Louis Bossart , , Kiran Patil , linux-rdma , Shiraz Saleem , Martin Habets , "Liam Girdwood" , Ranjani Sridharan , Fred Oh , "Dave Ertman" , Jakub Kicinski , Netdev , Leon Romanovsky , David Miller , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Parav Pandit , Subject: Re: [resend/standalone PATCH v4] Add auxiliary bus support Message-ID: <20201218205856.GZ552508@nvidia.com> References: <20201217211937.GA3177478@piout.net> <20201218131709.GA5333@sirena.org.uk> <20201218140854.GW552508@nvidia.com> <20201218155204.GC5333@sirena.org.uk> <20201218162817.GX552508@nvidia.com> <20201218180310.GD5333@sirena.org.uk> <20201218184150.GY552508@nvidia.com> <20201218203211.GE5333@sirena.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20201218203211.GE5333@sirena.org.uk> X-ClientProxiedBy: BL0PR01CA0007.prod.exchangelabs.com (2603:10b6:208:71::20) To DM6PR12MB3834.namprd12.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:5:14a::12) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MS-Exchange-MessageSentRepresentingType: 1 Received: from mlx.ziepe.ca (142.162.115.133) by BL0PR01CA0007.prod.exchangelabs.com (2603:10b6:208:71::20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3654.12 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 20:58:57 +0000 Received: from jgg by mlx with local (Exim 4.94) (envelope-from ) id 1kqMq0-00CvHl-1X; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 16:58:56 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nvidia.com; s=n1; t=1608325141; bh=IDI5Cvx/QMGqhJCQkIPCkWYEOEwvb1t/i3GIrRAP0jE=; h=ARC-Seal:ARC-Message-Signature:ARC-Authentication-Results:Date: From:To:CC:Subject:Message-ID:References:Content-Type: Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To:X-ClientProxiedBy:MIME-Version: X-MS-Exchange-MessageSentRepresentingType; b=e4U24Cpk8UCcJbcDn9+jDbjP7qDNv3rqoxrUVk5ezTKPcccWpv9boWD7Anosm1aV+ LDBTd+U5ZAxZ0n8yQuFiSbX9fQs9KjoVI1HcueJzwi+7tyGJT8gqrzjihUqQmBo//z NVZEgtR3qigkwRmHnFqqiv76radIFSLMlxr56KJDVtu7StPz+r7tDiwmpK2kZtl75b tR/zUiflnKJT09hUyG7P5NCNla78nMTkKFf3K5HxbNJnEgE1IgSuLWdyq5BokFpaZn qqUvdAStiWCCNMQDWEGD8CusvNAKMxNAwW1BHvE98MqO79QCiaXYcpkTzEauq//rDC LJwy5agNHp11Q== Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 08:32:11PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > So, I strongly suspect, MFD should create mfd devices on a MFD bus > > type. > > Historically people did try to create custom bus types, as I have > pointed out before there was then pushback that these were duplicating > the platform bus so everything uses platform bus. Yes, I vaugely remember.. I don't know what to say, it seems Greg doesn't share this view of platform devices as a universal device. Reading between the lines, I suppose things would have been happier with some kind of inheritance scheme where platform device remained as only instantiated directly in board files, while drivers could bind to OF/DT/ACPI/FPGA/etc device instantiations with minimal duplication & boilerplate. And maybe that is exactly what we have today with platform devices, though the name is now unfortunate. > I can't tell the difference between what it's doing and what SOF is > doing, the code I've seen is just looking at the system it's running > on and registering a fixed set of client devices. It looks slightly > different because it's registering a device at a time with some wrapper > functions involved but that's what the code actually does. SOF's aux bus usage in general seems weird to me, but if you think it fits the mfd scheme of primarily describing HW to partition vs describing a SW API then maybe it should use mfd. The only problem with mfd as far as SOF is concerned was Greg was not happy when he saw PCI stuff in the MFD subsystem. This whole thing started when Intel first proposed to directly create platform_device's in their ethernet driver and Greg had a quite strong NAK to that. MFD still doesn't fit what mlx5 and others in the netdev area are trying to do. Though it could have been soe-horned it would have been really weird to create a platform device with an empty HW resource list. At a certain point the bus type has to mean *something*! Jason