On 11-05-20, 08:04, Liao, Bard wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Vinod Koul <[email protected]> > > Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 2:32 PM > > To: Bard Liao <[email protected]> > > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > > [email protected]; > > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > > [email protected]; [email protected]; > > [email protected]; [email protected]; pierre- > > [email protected]; Kale, Sanyog R <[email protected]>; > > Blauciak, Slawomir <[email protected]>; Lin, Mengdong > > <[email protected]>; Liao, Bard <[email protected]> > > 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().
We need to test if this is valid or not :) > 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. the parent is bus->dev and sdw_master_device created would be child of this and should be set as such. You can remove it from bus object and keep in sdw_master_device object, that is fine by me. The sdw_slave is child of sdw_master_device now and looks to be set correct. -- ~Vinod
