From: Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org> To: Bard Liao <yung-chuan.liao@linux.intel.com> Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tiwai@suse.de, broonie@kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, jank@cadence.com, srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org, rander.wang@linux.intel.com, ranjani.sridharan@linux.intel.com, hui.wang@canonical.com, pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com, sanyog.r.kale@intel.com, slawomir.blauciak@intel.com, mengdong.lin@intel.com, bard.liao@intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] soundwire: bus_type: add sdw_master_device support Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 12:02:27 +0530 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20200511063227.GS1375924@vkoul-mobl> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20200429185145.12891-4-yung-chuan.liao@linux.intel.com> 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 > +int sdw_master_device_add(struct sdw_bus *bus, struct device *parent, > + struct fwnode_handle *fwnode) > +{ > + struct sdw_master_device *md; > + int ret; > + > + if (!bus) > + return -EINVAL; > + > + /* > + * Unlike traditional devices, there's no allocation here since the > + * sdw_master_device is embedded in the bus structure. > + */ Looking at this and empty sdw_master_device_release() above, makes me wonder if it is a wise move? Should we rather allocate the sdw_master_device() and then free that up in sdw_master_device_release() or it is really overkill given that this is called when we remove the sdw_bus instance as well... > + md = &bus->md; > + md->dev.bus = &sdw_bus_type; > + md->dev.type = &sdw_master_type; > + md->dev.parent = parent; > + md->dev.of_node = parent->of_node; > + md->dev.fwnode = fwnode; > + md->dev.dma_mask = parent->dma_mask; > + > + dev_set_name(&md->dev, "sdw-master-%d", bus->link_id); This give nice sdw-master-0. In DT this comes from reg property. I dont seem to recall if the ACPI/Disco spec treats link_id as unique across the system, can you check that please, if not we would need to update this. -- ~Vinod
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org> To: Bard Liao <yung-chuan.liao@linux.intel.com> Cc: pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com, alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, tiwai@suse.de, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ranjani.sridharan@linux.intel.com, hui.wang@canonical.com, broonie@kernel.org, srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org, jank@cadence.com, mengdong.lin@intel.com, slawomir.blauciak@intel.com, sanyog.r.kale@intel.com, rander.wang@linux.intel.com, bard.liao@intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] soundwire: bus_type: add sdw_master_device support Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 12:02:27 +0530 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20200511063227.GS1375924@vkoul-mobl> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20200429185145.12891-4-yung-chuan.liao@linux.intel.com> 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 > +int sdw_master_device_add(struct sdw_bus *bus, struct device *parent, > + struct fwnode_handle *fwnode) > +{ > + struct sdw_master_device *md; > + int ret; > + > + if (!bus) > + return -EINVAL; > + > + /* > + * Unlike traditional devices, there's no allocation here since the > + * sdw_master_device is embedded in the bus structure. > + */ Looking at this and empty sdw_master_device_release() above, makes me wonder if it is a wise move? Should we rather allocate the sdw_master_device() and then free that up in sdw_master_device_release() or it is really overkill given that this is called when we remove the sdw_bus instance as well... > + md = &bus->md; > + md->dev.bus = &sdw_bus_type; > + md->dev.type = &sdw_master_type; > + md->dev.parent = parent; > + md->dev.of_node = parent->of_node; > + md->dev.fwnode = fwnode; > + md->dev.dma_mask = parent->dma_mask; > + > + dev_set_name(&md->dev, "sdw-master-%d", bus->link_id); This give nice sdw-master-0. In DT this comes from reg property. I dont seem to recall if the ACPI/Disco spec treats link_id as unique across the system, can you check that please, if not we would need to update this. -- ~Vinod
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-05-11 6:32 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2020-04-29 18:51 [PATCH 0/3] soundwire: bus_type: add sdw_master_device support Bard Liao 2020-04-29 18:51 ` Bard Liao 2020-04-29 18:51 ` [PATCH 1/3] soundwire: bus: rename sdw_bus_master_add/delete, add arguments Bard Liao 2020-04-29 18:51 ` Bard Liao 2020-04-29 18:51 ` [PATCH 2/3] soundwire: bus_type: introduce sdw_slave_type and sdw_master_type Bard Liao 2020-04-29 18:51 ` Bard Liao 2020-04-29 18:51 ` [PATCH 3/3] soundwire: bus_type: add sdw_master_device support Bard Liao 2020-04-29 18:51 ` Bard Liao 2020-05-11 6:32 ` Vinod Koul [this message] 2020-05-11 6:32 ` Vinod Koul 2020-05-11 8:04 ` Liao, Bard 2020-05-11 8:04 ` Liao, Bard 2020-05-11 9:00 ` Vinod Koul 2020-05-11 9:00 ` Vinod Koul 2020-05-11 11:34 ` Liao, Bard 2020-05-11 11:34 ` Liao, Bard 2020-05-11 11:41 ` Vinod Koul 2020-05-11 11:41 ` Vinod Koul 2020-05-11 19:00 ` Pierre-Louis Bossart 2020-05-12 3:30 ` Vinod Koul 2020-05-12 3:30 ` Vinod Koul 2020-05-12 14:36 ` Pierre-Louis Bossart 2020-05-12 15:59 ` Vinod Koul 2020-05-12 16:08 ` Pierre-Louis Bossart 2020-05-12 17:01 ` Pierre-Louis Bossart 2020-05-13 10:16 ` Vinod Koul
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20200511063227.GS1375924@vkoul-mobl \ --to=vkoul@kernel.org \ --cc=alsa-devel@alsa-project.org \ --cc=bard.liao@intel.com \ --cc=broonie@kernel.org \ --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \ --cc=hui.wang@canonical.com \ --cc=jank@cadence.com \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=mengdong.lin@intel.com \ --cc=pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com \ --cc=rander.wang@linux.intel.com \ --cc=ranjani.sridharan@linux.intel.com \ --cc=sanyog.r.kale@intel.com \ --cc=slawomir.blauciak@intel.com \ --cc=srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org \ --cc=tiwai@suse.de \ --cc=yung-chuan.liao@linux.intel.com \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.