Re: [PATCH v4] soundwire: intel: move to auxiliary bus

From: Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>
To: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com>
Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>,
	gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Ranjani Sridharan <ranjani.sridharan@linux.intel.com>,
	hui.wang@canonical.com, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>,
	Dave Ertman <david.m.ertman@intel.com>,
	sanyog.r.kale@intel.com,
	Bard Liao <yung-chuan.liao@linux.intel.com>,
	rander.wang@linux.intel.com, bard.liao@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] soundwire: intel: move to auxiliary bus
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2021 10:13:37 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YMbeefn6EHIqImQK@vkoul-mobl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <be440569-e18b-b079-2795-0af1e6812935@linux.intel.com>

On 11-06-21, 09:51, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
> Thanks Vinod for your feedback,
> 
> > > If you look at the *existing* code, we don't handle any "resources" with the
> > > platform devices, we use the platform_device_info.data to pass the link
> > > information. It's a void pointer. We do not touch the resource field in the
> > > platform_device_into at all.
> > 
> > Yes that is true I dont disagree on that part. My ask here is to make it
> > better, it can be followed up after this but I would at least like to
> > agree on the direction.
> 
> [...]
> 
> > > That's it. We did not change anything else, all the other fields are
> > > identical. We are only changing the TYPE of device and the interfaces for
> > > probe/remove but using the same information and the same device hierarchy.
> > 
> > The move in itself is okay but I dont think that should be the end goal.
> 
> What we suggested in this patch is only an iso-functionality change. I
> believe from Greg's and your feedback that there is no objection on that
> small step.
> 
> This is not the end-goal indeed. The second step would be to remove the
> intel_init.c file. I fully agree with you Vinod that this can be moved into
> the SOF driver, and we could do this in a follow-up step. We can also
> improve the partition between 'context' used by the child driver and
> information passed by the parent on SHIM registers and bases.
> 
> I think we'd need to agree on the details of the second step, Bard and I can
> work on a proposal, but I don't see a disconnect on the direction to
> simplify the interface. That's the right thing to do.

That is agreeable to me. Looking forward to updates to clean these bits
up

Thanks
-- 
~Vinod