Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] Add ancillary bus support

From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
To: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>
Cc: "Saleem, Shiraz" <shiraz.saleem@intel.com>,
	Parav Pandit <parav@nvidia.com>,
	Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com>,
	"Ertman, David M" <david.m.ertman@intel.com>,
	"alsa-devel@alsa-project.org" <alsa-devel@alsa-project.org>,
	"parav@mellanox.com" <parav@mellanox.com>,
	"tiwai@suse.de" <tiwai@suse.de>,
	"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	"ranjani.sridharan@linux.intel.com" 
	<ranjani.sridharan@linux.intel.com>,
	"fred.oh@linux.intel.com" <fred.oh@linux.intel.com>,
	"linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org>,
	"dledford@redhat.com" <dledford@redhat.com>,
	"broonie@kernel.org" <broonie@kernel.org>,
	Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>,
	"gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	"kuba@kernel.org" <kuba@kernel.org>,
	"davem@davemloft.net" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	"Patil, Kiran" <kiran.patil@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] Add ancillary bus support
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2020 11:55:53 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4j1VrPkX_=61S7pdCPdDGy+xFGMkHHNnR-FT+TXXvbOWA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201007133633.GB3964015@unreal>

On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 6:37 AM Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 01:09:55PM +0000, Saleem, Shiraz wrote:
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] Add ancillary bus support
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 12:21 PM Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 05:41:00PM +0000, Saleem, Shiraz wrote:
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] Add ancillary bus support
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 05:09:09PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>
> > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2020 10:33 PM
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 10:18:07AM -0500, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Thanks for the review Leon.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Add support for the Ancillary Bus, ancillary_device and
> > > ancillary_driver.
> > > > > > > > > > > It enables drivers to create an ancillary_device and
> > > > > > > > > > > bind an ancillary_driver to it.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I was under impression that this name is going to be changed.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It's part of the opens stated in the cover letter.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ok, so what are the variants?
> > > > > > > > system bus (sysbus), sbsystem bus (subbus), crossbus ?
> > > > > > > Since the intended use of this bus is to
> > > > > > > (a) create sub devices that represent 'functional separation'
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > (b) second use case for subfunctions from a pci device,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I proposed below names in v1 of this patchset.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > (a) subdev_bus
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It sounds good, just can we avoid "_" in the name and call it subdev?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > What is wrong with naming the bus 'ancillary bus'? I feel it's a fitting name.
> > > > > An ancillary software bus for ancillary devices carved off a parent device
> > > registered on a primary bus.
> > > >
> > > > Greg summarized it very well, every internal conversation about this
> > > > patch with my colleagues (non-english speakers) starts with the question:
> > > > "What does ancillary mean?"
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/alsa-devel/20201001071403.GC31191@kroah.com/
> > > >
> > > > "For non-native english speakers this is going to be rough, given that
> > > > I as a native english speaker had to go look up the word in a
> > > > dictionary to fully understand what you are trying to do with that
> > > > name."
> > >
> > > I suggested "auxiliary" in another splintered thread on this question.
> > > In terms of what the kernel is already using:
> > >
> > > $ git grep auxiliary | wc -l
> > > 507
> > > $ git grep ancillary | wc -l
> > > 153
> > >
> > > Empirically, "auxiliary" is more common and closely matches the intended function
> > > of these devices relative to their parent device.
> >
> > auxiliary bus is a befitting name as well.
>
> Let's share all options and decide later.
> I don't want to find us bikeshedding about it.

Too late we are deep into bikeshedding at this point... it continued
over here [1] for a bit, but let's try to bring the discussion back to
this thread.

[1]: http://lore.kernel.org/r/10048d4d-038c-c2b7-2ed7-fd4ca87d104a@linux.intel.com