On 7/16/24 16:40, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Sun, Jul 14, 2024 at 10:18:12AM +0000, Omer Shpigelman wrote: >> On 7/12/24 16:08, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: >>> [You don't often get email from j...@ziepe.ca. Learn why this is important >>> at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 10:24:32AM +0000, Omer Shpigelman wrote: >>> >>>> We need the core driver to access the IB driver (and to the ETH driver as >>>> well). As you wrote, we can't use exported symbols from our IB driver nor >>>> rely on function pointers, but what about providing the core driver an ops >>>> structure? meaning exporting a register function from the core driver that >>>> should be called by the IB driver during auxiliary device probe. >>>> Something like: >>>> >>>> int hbl_cn_register_ib_aux_dev(struct auxiliary_device *adev, >>>> struct hbl_ib_ops *ops) >>>> { >>>> ... >>>> } >>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(hbl_cn_register_ib_aux_dev); >>> >>> Definately do not do some kind of double-register like this. >>> >>> The auxiliary_device scheme can already be extended to provide ops for >>> each sub device. >>> >>> Like >>> >>> struct habana_driver { >>> struct auxiliary_driver base; >>> const struct habana_ops *ops; >>> }; >>> >>> If the ops are justified or not is a different question. >>> >> >> Well, I suggested this double-register option because I got a comment that >> the design pattern of embedded ops structure shouldn't be used. >> So I'm confused now... > > Yeah, don't stick ops in random places, but the device_driver is the > right place. >
Sorry, let me explain again. My original code has an ops structure exactly like you are suggesting now (see struct hbl_aux_dev in the first patch of the series). But I was instructed not to use this ops structure and to rely on exported symbols for inter-driver communication. I'll be happy to use this ops structure like in your example rather than converting my code to use exported symbols. Leon - am I missing anything? what's the verdict here?
