lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 0/5] device property: Introducing software nodes
    On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 05:35:50PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
    > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 2:41 PM Heikki Krogerus
    > <heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com> wrote:
    > >
    > > Hi guys,
    > >
    > > To continue the discussion started by Dmitry [1], this is my proposal
    > > that I mentioned in my last mail. In short, the idea is that instead
    > > of trying to extend the support for the currently used struct
    > > property_set, I'm proposing that we introduce a completely new,
    > > independent type of fwnode, and replace the struct property_set with
    > > it. I'm calling the type "software node" here.
    > >
    > > The reason for a complete separation of the software nodes from the
    > > generic property handling code is the need to be able to create the
    > > nodes independently from the devices that they are bind to.
    > >
    > > The way this works is that every node that is created will have a
    > > kobject registered. That will take care the ref counting for us, and
    > > also allow us to for example display the properties in sysfs.
    > >
    > > There are a few more details in patch 3/5 about the software nodes in
    > > the commit message.
    > >
    > > [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/9/17/1067
    >
    > In private discussion I brought a concern that we exposed properties
    > as a part of ABI, but at the same time we have not strict rules which
    > might lead to ambiguous reading, e.g. there is no type exported and
    > thus no possibility to tell what kind of property it is.
    >
    > Examples:
    > 1. 0x1 and 0x1 ??? are they of the same type?
    > 2. 0x1 ??? is it an array or single value?
    > 3. 0x12345678 ??? is it string or hex?
    > 4. 25 ??? is it hex or decimal?
    >
    > Until these will not be solved, better to not to expose properties to userspace.

    I agree. I'll drop that part from my final version.


    Thanks Andy,

    --
    heikki

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2018-10-16 16:46    [W:4.080 / U:0.024 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site