lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Apr]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [RFC 1/5] soundwire: bus_type: add sdw_master_device support
    On 28-04-20, 08:55, Greg KH wrote:
    > On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 12:19:51PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
    > > On 28-04-20, 08:37, Greg KH wrote:
    > > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 10:01:44AM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
    > > > > > > That is not true for everyone, it is only true for Intel, pls call that
    > > > > > > out as well...
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Why is it not true for everyone? How else do you get the pm stuff back
    > > > > > to your hardware?
    > > > >
    > > > > The rest of the world would do using the real controller device. For
    > > > > example the soundwire controller on Qualcomm devices is enumerated as a
    > > > > DT device and is using these...
    > > > >
    > > > > If Intel had a standalone controller or enumerated as individual
    > > > > functions, it would have been a PCI device and would manage as such
    > > >
    > > > If it is not a standalone controller, what exactly is it? I thought it
    > > > was an acpi device, am I mistaken?
    > > >
    > > > What is the device that the proper soundwire controller driver binds to
    > > > on an Intel-based system?
    > >
    > > The HDA controller which is a PCI device. The device represent HDA
    > > function, DSP and Soundwire controller instances (yes it is typically
    > > more than one instance)
    >
    > Then those "instances" should be split up into individual devices that a
    > driver can bind to. See the work happening on the "virtual" bus for
    > examples of how that can be done.

    Yes removing platform devices is the goal for Intel now :) Pierre & Bard
    have been diligently trying to solve this.

    Only difference is the means to end goal. I am not convinced that this
    should be in soundwire subsystem.

    Looks like folks are trying to review and port to use this bus. Makes
    sense to me..
    https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/c5197d2f-3840-d304-6b09-d334cae81294@linux.intel.com/

    > A platform device better not be being used here, I'm afraid to look at
    > the code now...

    Well if the plan for 'virtual-bus' goes well, it should be a simple
    replacement of platform->virtual for Intel driver. Rest of the driver
    should not be impacted :)

    Thanks
    --
    ~Vinod

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2020-04-28 09:53    [W:2.780 / U:0.012 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site