From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757358Ab3BKNqQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Feb 2013 08:46:16 -0500 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:28302 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757215Ab3BKNqP (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Feb 2013 08:46:15 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,643,1355126400"; d="scan'208";a="285693805" Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 14:46:12 +0100 From: Samuel Ortiz To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Greg KH , Tomas Winkler , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [char-misc-next 01/11 V2] mei: bus: Initial MEI bus type implementation Message-ID: <20130211134612.GO20996@sortiz-mobl> References: <1360326504-17041-1-git-send-email-tomas.winkler@intel.com> <20130208235341.GA24127@kroah.com> <20130210032555.GG20996@sortiz-mobl> <201302111150.26785.arnd@arndb.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201302111150.26785.arnd@arndb.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Arnd, On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 11:50:26AM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Sunday 10 February 2013, Samuel Ortiz wrote: > > > > > > > > /** > > > > + * mei_bus_client > > > > > > I don't really understand this structure, please explain it better. > > This is a structure that links the MEI bus client pointer passed to the driver > > with the actual ME client. It also allows the ME driver to implement > > technology specific ME protocol through the send/recv hooks. > > I think part of the confusion is that this is what in other subsystems > is called a device, not a client. I believe I'm still confused in the > same way that Greg is. Ok, I understand where the confusion comes from now. Yes, for most of the other subsystems, this is a device. Initially I tried to keep the MEI bus code as little intrusive as possible and I didn't want to rename mei_device to something else. > You already have a 'struct mei_device', which refers to the PCI device > that owns the bus, and has clients attached to it. While it may be > a little confusing to people that already worked with the current > mei code, I think it would help to rename the existing 'mei_device' > to 'mei_host' or something else that feels appropriate, and introduce > the new structure as 'mei_device' derived from 'struct device', again > matching what most other subsystems do. I understand, and I agree it would make sense. As we're aiming at having this patchset merged during the next merge window, would it be ok to have this renaming phase as a follow up patch ? > Similarly, you can then rename 'mei_bus_driver' to 'mei_driver' to fit > that logic, since I would consider a 'bus_driver' to be something > that is responsible for the entire bus, not just for one device. That would make sense as well, and I can have this done through patchset v4. Cheers, Samuel. -- Intel Open Source Technology Centre http://oss.intel.com/