Re: [PATCH v2 0/9] Add support for Microsoft Surface System Aggregator Module

[Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@gmail.com>]

On 12/6/20 11:43 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 12/6/20 11:33 AM, Maximilian Luz wrote:
>> On 12/6/20 10:06 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:> On Sun, Dec 06, 2020 at 05:58:32PM +0900, Blaž Hrastnik wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> More on that, the whole purpose of proposed interface is to debug and
>>>>>> not intended to be used by any user space code.
>>>>>
>>>>> The purpose is to provide raw access to the Surface Serial Hub protocol,
>>>>> just like we provide raw access to USB devices and have hidraw devices.
>>>>>
>>>>> So this goes a litle beyond just debugging; and eventually the choice
>>>>> may be made to implement some functionality with userspace drivers,
>>>>> just like we do for some HID and USB devices.
>>>>>
>>>>> Still I agree with you that adding new userspace API is something which
>>>>> needs to be considered carefully. So I will look at this closely when
>>>>> reviewing this set.
>>>>
>>>> To add to that: this was previously a debugfs interface but was moved to misc after review on the initial RFC:
>>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/9/24/96
>>>
>>> There is a huge difference between the suggestion and final implementation.
>>>
>>> Greg suggested to add new debug module to the drivers/misc that will
>>> open char device explicitly after user loaded that module to debug this
>>> hub. However, the author added full blown char device as a first citizen
>>> that has all not-break-user constrains.
>>
>> This module still needs to be loaded explicitly.
> 
> Good then I really do not see a problem with this.
> 
>> And (I might be wrong
>> about this) the "not-break-user constraints" hold as soon as I register
>> a misc device at all, no?
> 
> Correct.
> 
>> So I don't see how this is a) any different
>> than previously discussed with Greg and b) how the uapi header now
>> introduces any not-break-user constraints that would not be there
>> without it.
>>
>> This interface is intended as a stable interface. That's something that
>> I committed to as soon as I decided to implement this via a misc-device.
>>
>> Sure, I can move the definitions in the uapi header to the module
>> itself, but I don't see any benefit in that.
> 
> Right, if we are going to use a misc chardev for this, then the
> correct thing to do is to put the API bits for that chardev under
> include/uapi.
> 
> It would still be good if you can provide a pointer to some userspace
> tools using this new API; and for the next version maybe add that
> pointer to the commit message

Right, I will add that to the commit message. I just linked you the
scripts in my other response, but here again for completeness:

   https://github.com/linux-surface/surface-aggregator-module/tree/master/scripts/ssam

While I'm not using the header directly (the scripts are written in
python) I still think uapi is the right place to put this (please
correct me if I'm wrong). Not putting them there seems to be needless
obfuscating to me.

Regards,
Max