Re: [RFC 1/5] soundwire: bus_type: add sdw_master_device support

[Vinod Koul]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> > 
> > > 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