Re: [PATCH 2/4] MFD: intel_pmt: Remove OOBMSM device

[Lee Jones]

On Thu, 01 Jul 2021, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

> On Thursday, July 1, 2021, Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 01 Jul 2021, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >
> > > On Thursday, July 1, 2021, Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, 01 Jul 2021, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > On 6/30/21 11:11 PM, David E. Box wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, 2021-06-30 at 11:15 +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > > >> On Thu, 17 Jun 2021, David E. Box wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> Unlike the other devices in intel_pmt, the Out of Band Management
> > > > > >>> Services
> > > > > >>> Module (OOBMSM) is actually not a PMT dedicated device. It can
> > also
> > > > > >>> be used
> > > > > >>> to describe non-PMT capabilities. Like PMT, these capabilities
> > are
> > > > > >>> also
> > > > > >>> enumerated using PCIe Vendor Specific registers in config space.
> > In
> > > > > >>> order
> > > > > >>> to better support these devices without the confusion of a
> > > > > >>> dependency on
> > > > > >>> MFD_INTEL_PMT, remove the OOBMSM device from intel_pmt so that it
> > > > > >>> can be
> > > > > >>> later placed in its own driver. Since much of the same code will
> > be
> > > > > >>> used by
> > > > > >>> intel_pmt and the new driver, create a new file with symbols to
> > be
> > > > > >>> used by
> > > > > >>> both.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> While performing this split we need to also handle the creation
> > of
> > > > > >>> platform
> > > > > >>> devices for the non-PMT capabilities. Currently PMT devices are
> > > > > >>> named by
> > > > > >>> their capability (e.g. pmt_telemetry). Instead, generically name
> > > > > >>> them by
> > > > > >>> their capability ID (e.g. intel_extnd_cap_2). This allows the IDs
> > > > > >>> to be
> > > > > >>> created automatically.  However, to ensure that unsupported
> > devices
> > > > > >>> aren't
> > > > > >>> created, use an allow list to specify supported capabilities.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Signed-off-by: David E. Box <david.e.box@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > >>> ---
> > > > > >>>  MAINTAINERS                                |   1 +
> > > > > >>>  drivers/mfd/Kconfig                        |   4 +
> > > > > >>>  drivers/mfd/Makefile                       |   1 +
> > > > > >>>  drivers/mfd/intel_extended_caps.c          | 208
> > > > > >>> +++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Please consider moving this <whatever this is> out to either
> > > > > >> drivers/pci or drivers/platform/x86.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > None of the cell drivers are in MFD, only the PCI drivers from
> > which
> > > > > > the cells are created. I understood that these should be in MFD.
> > But
> > > > > > moving it to drivers/platform/x86 would be fine with me. That
> > keeps the
> > > > > > code together in the same subsystem. Comment from Hans or Andy?
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm fine with moving everything to drivers/platform/x86, but AFAIK
> > > > > usually the actual code which has the MFD cells and creates the
> > > > > child devices usually lives under drivers/mfd
> > > >
> > > > Correct.  It must.
> > >
> > > It’s definitely not the first time you are talking about, but it may be
> > the
> > > first time I asked why it’s not enforced overall. Last time I have
> > checked
> > > it was like 5-7 MFD uses outside the MFD folder. Are you going to fix
> > that?
> >
> > Because I can't NACK patches that weren't sent to me. :)
> >
> >
> Hint: you may add regexp match to the maintainers database and you will see
> them more often

Good idea.  I'll add it to my TODO.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog