Date:   Fri, 27 Jan 2023 10:07:23 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     "Winkler, Tomas" <tomas.winkler@intel.com>
Cc:     "Usyskin, Alexander" <alexander.usyskin@intel.com>,
        "Lubart, Vitaly" <vitaly.lubart@intel.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [char-misc-next] mei: gsc_proxy: add gsc proxy driver
Message-ID: <Y9OUS7Y57t0y0gx4@kroah.com>
References: <20221222220214.3688774-1-tomas.winkler@intel.com>
 <Y6VV5d/V4MKDz2Te@kroah.com>
 <CY5PR11MB6366515D2A965EEDEC77AF63EDF29@CY5PR11MB6366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <Y8lt1gmo9smOMXD7@kroah.com>
 <MN2PR11MB409305204A36872FEDAD2B82E5C99@MN2PR11MB4093.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR11MB409305204A36872FEDAD2B82E5C99@MN2PR11MB4093.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 09:05:19PM +0000, Winkler, Tomas wrote:
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 18:21
> > To: Usyskin, Alexander <alexander.usyskin@intel.com>
> > Cc: Winkler, Tomas <tomas.winkler@intel.com>; Lubart, Vitaly
> > <vitaly.lubart@intel.com>; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> > Subject: Re: [char-misc-next] mei: gsc_proxy: add gsc proxy driver
> > 
> > On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 11:46:36AM +0000, Usyskin, Alexander wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Why a whole new subdirectory for a tiny 200 line file?
> > > >
> > > All drivers for devices on mei bus have private subdirectory.
> > > This one just modelled on the existing examples.
> > > If you say that this is not a good thing - can put it in the main mei directory.
> > 
> > Put it in the main mei directory, no need to split things up for no good
> > reason.
> > 
> 
> All mei sub drivers are in sperate directories, this driver is indeed tiny, but I do prefer consistency,
> In my view it is easier to maintain that way. 

Ok.

> I believe all the bellow stuff you've already discussed in ths thread,.
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/YkXdgQH1GWCitf0A@kroah.com/T/
> I guess all that was explained there, so no need to repeat.
> 
> We'll try to see what can be done to make it more robust and your comments are more than valid,
> but as the thread concludes probably the component framework needs to be addressed. 

Agreed, something needs to be done, you can't make these random
assumptions about the exact driver and device topology as that is not
how the driver model works at all (nor do you want it to work that way.)

thanks,

greg k-h