From: Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>
To: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com>
Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, tiwai@suse.de,
gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Ranjani Sridharan <ranjani.sridharan@linux.intel.com>,
broonie@kernel.org, srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org,
jank@cadence.com, slawomir.blauciak@intel.com,
Sanyog Kale <sanyog.r.kale@intel.com>,
Bard liao <yung-chuan.liao@linux.intel.com>,
Rander Wang <rander.wang@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH v5 08/17] soundwire: add initial definitions for sdw_master_device
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2019 17:39:30 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191228120930.GR3006@vkoul-mobl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1922c494-4641-8c40-192d-758b21014fbc@linux.intel.com>
On 27-12-19, 17:38, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
>
>
> On 12/27/19 1:14 AM, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > On 17-12-19, 15:03, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
> > > Since we want an explicit support for the SoundWire Master device, add
> > > the definitions, following the Greybus example of a 'Host Device'.
> > >
> > > A parent (such as the Intel audio controller) would use sdw_md_add()
> > > to create the device, passing a driver as a parameter. The
> > > sdw_md_release() would be called when put_device() is invoked by the
> > > parent. We use the shortcut 'md' for 'master device' to avoid very
> > > long function names.
> >
> > I agree we should not have long name :) but md does not sound great. Can
> > we drop the device and use sdw_slave and sdw_master for devices and
> > append _driver when we are talking about drivers...
> >
> > we dont use sd for slave and imo this would gel well with existing names
>
> In SoundWire parlance, both 'Slave' and 'Master' are 'Devices', so yes we do
> in the standard talk about 'Slave Devices' and 'Master Devices'.
>
> Then we have Linux 'Devices' which can be used for both.
>
> If we use 'sdw_slave', would we be referring to the actual physical part or
> the Linux device?
>
> FWIW the Greybus example used 'Host Device' and 'hd' as shortcut.
But this messes up consistency in the naming of sdw objects. I am all for
it, if we do sd for slave and name all structs and APIs accordingly. The key
is consistency!
So it needs to be sd/md and so on or sdw_slave and sdw_master and so
on... not a mix of both
> > > --- a/drivers/soundwire/bus_type.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/soundwire/bus_type.c
> > > @@ -66,7 +66,10 @@ int sdw_uevent(struct device *dev, struct kobj_uevent_env *env)
> > > * callback is set to use this function for a
> > > * different device type (e.g. Master or Monitor)
> > > */
> > > - dev_err(dev, "uevent for unknown Soundwire type\n");
> > > + if (is_sdw_master_device(dev))
> > > + dev_err(dev, "uevent for SoundWire Master type\n");
> >
> > see below [1]:
> >
> > > +static void sdw_md_release(struct device *dev)
> >
> > sdw_master_release() won't be too long!
>
> yes, but there is no such operation as 'Master Release' in SoundWire.
> At least the 'md' shortcut conveys the implicit convention that this is a
> Linux device only.
>
> I really would like to avoid overloading the standard definitions with the
> Linux ones...
I agree with you on not overloading but from a linux pov, we need names
which are consistent with each other...
> > > +{
> > > + struct sdw_master_device *md = to_sdw_master_device(dev);
> > > +
> > > + kfree(md);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +struct device_type sdw_md_type = {
> >
> > sdw_master_type and so on :)
> >
> > > + .name = "soundwire_master",
> > > + .release = sdw_md_release,
> >
> > [1]:
> > There is no uevent added here, so sdw_uevent() will never be called for
> > this, can you check again if you see the print you added?
>
> as explained this is to avoid errors at a later point. I don't see any harm
> in providing error checks for a routine that can only be used for 1 of the 3
> devices defined in the standard?
>
> > > +struct sdw_master_device {
> >
> > we have sdw_slave, so would be better if we call this sdw_master
> >
> > > + struct device dev;
> > > + int link_id;
> > > + struct sdw_md_driver *driver;
> > > + void *pdata;
> >
> > no sdw_bus pointer and I dont see bus adding this object.. Is there no
> > link between bus and master device objects?
>
> There is currently no bus device object, see the structure definition it's a
> pointer to a device (which leads to all sorts of issues because we can't use
> container_of).
>
> when the master device gets added, that's where the Linux device is created
> and the pointer saved in the bus structure, with IIRC sdw_add_bus_master().
>
>
> ret = sdw_add_bus_master(&sdw->cdns.bus);
--
~Vinod
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@alsa-project.org
https://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-12-28 12:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-12-17 21:02 [alsa-devel] [PATCH v5 00/17] soundwire: intel: implement new ASoC interfaces Pierre-Louis Bossart
2019-12-17 21:02 ` [alsa-devel] [PATCH v5 01/17] soundwire: renames to prepare support for master drivers/devices Pierre-Louis Bossart
2019-12-17 21:02 ` [alsa-devel] [PATCH v5 02/17] soundwire: rename dev_to_sdw_dev macro Pierre-Louis Bossart
2019-12-27 6:54 ` Vinod Koul
2019-12-17 21:03 ` [alsa-devel] [PATCH v5 03/17] soundwire: rename drv_to_sdw_slave_driver macro Pierre-Louis Bossart
2019-12-27 7:00 ` Vinod Koul
2019-12-27 23:23 ` Pierre-Louis Bossart
2019-12-28 12:03 ` Vinod Koul
2019-12-17 21:03 ` [alsa-devel] [PATCH v5 04/17] soundwire: bus_type: rename sdw_drv_ to sdw_slave_drv Pierre-Louis Bossart
2019-12-17 21:03 ` [alsa-devel] [PATCH v5 05/17] soundwire: intel: rename res field as link_res Pierre-Louis Bossart
2019-12-17 21:03 ` [alsa-devel] [PATCH v5 06/17] soundwire: add support for sdw_slave_type Pierre-Louis Bossart
2019-12-27 7:03 ` Vinod Koul
2019-12-27 23:26 ` Pierre-Louis Bossart
2019-12-28 12:05 ` Vinod Koul
2019-12-17 21:03 ` [alsa-devel] [PATCH v5 07/17] soundwire: slave: move uevent handling to slave device level Pierre-Louis Bossart
2019-12-17 21:03 ` [alsa-devel] [PATCH v5 08/17] soundwire: add initial definitions for sdw_master_device Pierre-Louis Bossart
2019-12-27 7:14 ` Vinod Koul
2019-12-27 23:38 ` Pierre-Louis Bossart
2019-12-28 12:09 ` Vinod Koul [this message]
2020-01-02 17:36 ` Pierre-Louis Bossart
2020-01-06 5:32 ` Vinod Koul
2019-12-17 21:03 ` [alsa-devel] [PATCH v5 09/17] soundwire: intel: remove platform devices and use 'Master Devices' instead Pierre-Louis Bossart
2019-12-27 9:08 ` Vinod Koul
2019-12-28 0:13 ` Pierre-Louis Bossart
2020-01-06 5:42 ` Vinod Koul
2020-01-06 14:51 ` Pierre-Louis Bossart
2020-01-10 6:43 ` Vinod Koul
2020-01-10 16:08 ` Pierre-Louis Bossart
2020-01-13 5:18 ` Vinod Koul
2020-01-13 15:22 ` Pierre-Louis Bossart
2020-01-14 6:09 ` Vinod Koul
2020-01-14 16:01 ` Pierre-Louis Bossart
2020-01-18 7:12 ` Vinod Koul
2020-01-21 17:31 ` Pierre-Louis Bossart
2020-01-28 10:50 ` Vinod Koul
2020-01-28 16:02 ` Pierre-Louis Bossart
2020-01-29 5:08 ` Vinod Koul
2020-01-29 14:59 ` Pierre-Louis Bossart
2020-02-03 12:02 ` Vinod Koul
2019-12-17 21:03 ` [alsa-devel] [PATCH v5 10/17] soundwire: register master device driver Pierre-Louis Bossart
2019-12-17 21:03 ` [alsa-devel] [PATCH v5 11/17] soundwire: intel: add prepare support in sdw dai driver Pierre-Louis Bossart
2019-12-17 21:03 ` [alsa-devel] [PATCH v5 12/17] soundwire: intel: add trigger " Pierre-Louis Bossart
2019-12-17 21:03 ` [alsa-devel] [PATCH v5 13/17] soundwire: intel: add sdw_stream_setup helper for .startup callback Pierre-Louis Bossart
2019-12-17 21:03 ` [alsa-devel] [PATCH v5 14/17] soundwire: intel: free all resources on hw_free() Pierre-Louis Bossart
2019-12-17 21:03 ` [alsa-devel] [PATCH v5 15/17] soundwire: intel_init: add implementation of sdw_intel_enable_irq() Pierre-Louis Bossart
2019-12-17 21:03 ` [alsa-devel] [PATCH v5 16/17] soundwire: intel_init: use EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS Pierre-Louis Bossart
2019-12-17 21:03 ` [alsa-devel] [PATCH v5 17/17] soundwire: intel: " Pierre-Louis Bossart
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=20191228120930.GR3006@vkoul-mobl \
--to=vkoul@kernel.org \
--cc=alsa-devel@alsa-project.org \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jank@cadence.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--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: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).