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

["Ertman, David M" <david.m.ertman@intel.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2020 11:56 AM
> 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;
> parav@mellanox.com; tiwai@suse.de; netdev@vger.kernel.org;
> ranjani.sridharan@linux.intel.com; fred.oh@linux.intel.com; linux-
> rdma@vger.kernel.org; dledford@redhat.com; broonie@kernel.org; Jason
> Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>; gregkh@linuxfoundation.org;
> kuba@kernel.org; davem@davemloft.net; Patil, Kiran
> <kiran.patil@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] Add ancillary bus support
> 
> 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

Out of all of the suggestions put forward so far that do not
have real objections to them ...

I would put my vote behind aux - short, simple, meaningful

-DaveE