> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vinod Koul <[email protected]>
> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 5:00 PM
> To: Liao, Bard <[email protected]>
> Cc: Bard Liao <[email protected]>; [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]>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] soundwire: bus_type: add sdw_master_device support
>
> 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.
Looks like we don't need the parent and fwnode parameter since we can
get them from bus->dev 😊
>
> The sdw_slave is child of sdw_master_device now and looks to be set correct.
So, it will be
bus device
-> master device
-> slave device
right?
I have a question here. We have pm supported on bus and slave devices,
but not master device. Will pm work with this architecture?
Can it be
bus device
-> master device & slave device?
>
> --
> ~Vinod
