> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vinod Koul <vk...@kernel.org>
> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 2:32 PM
> To: Bard Liao <yung-chuan.l...@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: alsa-de...@alsa-project.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; ti...@suse.de;
> broo...@kernel.org; gre...@linuxfoundation.org; j...@cadence.com;
> srinivas.kandaga...@linaro.org; rander.w...@linux.intel.com;
> ranjani.sridha...@linux.intel.com; hui.w...@canonical.com; pierre-
> louis.boss...@linux.intel.com; Kale, Sanyog R <sanyog.r.k...@intel.com>;
> Blauciak, Slawomir <slawomir.blauc...@intel.com>; Lin, Mengdong
> <mengdong....@intel.com>; Liao, Bard <bard.l...@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] soundwire: bus_type: add sdw_master_device support
>
> On 30-04-20, 02:51, Bard Liao wrote:
> > @@ -24,9 +24,14 @@ int sdw_bus_master_add(struct sdw_bus *bus, struct
> device *parent,
> > struct sdw_master_prop *prop = NULL;
> > int ret;
> >
> > - if (!bus->dev) {
> > - pr_err("SoundWire bus has no device\n");
> > - return -ENODEV;
>
> This check is removed and not moved into sdw_master_device_add() either, can
> you add here or in patch 1 and keep checking the parent device please
We will set bus->dev = &md->dev in the end of sdw_master_device_add().
That's why we remove the test. But now I am wandering does it make sense
to set bus->dev = &md->dev? Maybe it makes more sense to set bus->dev =
sdw control device.
A follow up question is that should slave device a child of bus device or
master device? I would prefer bus device if it makes sense.
I will check bus->dev and parent and remove bus->dev = &md->dev in the
next version.
>
> > +int sdw_master_device_add(struct sdw_bus *bus, struct device *parent,
> > + struct fwnode_handle *fwnode)
> > +{
> > + struct sdw_master_device *md;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + if (!bus)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Unlike traditional devices, there's no allocation here since the
> > + * sdw_master_device is embedded in the bus structure.
> > + */
>
> Looking at this and empty sdw_master_device_release() above, makes me
> wonder if it is a wise move? Should we rather allocate the
> sdw_master_device() and then free that up in sdw_master_device_release() or it
> is really overkill given that this is called when we remove the sdw_bus
> instance
> as well...
Yes, I will allocate sdw_master_device here and free it in
sdw_master_device_release().
>
> > + md = &bus->md;
> > + md->dev.bus = &sdw_bus_type;
> > + md->dev.type = &sdw_master_type;
> > + md->dev.parent = parent;
> > + md->dev.of_node = parent->of_node;
> > + md->dev.fwnode = fwnode;
> > + md->dev.dma_mask = parent->dma_mask;
> > +
> > + dev_set_name(&md->dev, "sdw-master-%d", bus->link_id);
>
> This give nice sdw-master-0. In DT this comes from reg property. I dont seem
> to
> recall if the ACPI/Disco spec treats link_id as unique across the system, can
> you
> check that please, if not we would need to update this.
Sure, I will check it.
>
> --
> ~Vinod
