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

[Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>]

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@linux.intel.com>
> >>> ---
> >>>  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.

No MFD API users outside of drivers/mfd please.

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