lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [May]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/3] soundwire: bus_type: add sdw_master_device support
From
Date


On 5/12/20 11:08 AM, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
>
>
> On 5/12/20 10:59 AM, Vinod Koul wrote:
>> On 12-05-20, 09:36, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
>>> On 5/11/20 10:30 PM, Vinod Koul wrote:
>>>> On 11-05-20, 14:00, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
>>>>>>> +    md = &bus->md;
>>>>>>> +    md->dev.bus = &sdw_bus_type;
>>>>>>> +    md->dev.type = &sdw_master_type;
>>>>>>> +    md->dev.parent = parent;
>>>>>>> +    md->dev.of_node = parent->of_node;
>>>>>>> +    md->dev.fwnode = fwnode;
>>>>>>> +    md->dev.dma_mask = parent->dma_mask;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +    dev_set_name(&md->dev, "sdw-master-%d", bus->link_id);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This give nice sdw-master-0. In DT this comes from reg property. I
>>>>>> dont
>>>>>> seem to recall if the ACPI/Disco spec treats link_id as unique across
>>>>>> the system, can you check that please, if not we would need to update
>>>>>> this.
>>>>> Table 3 in the Disco for Soundwire 1.0 spec: "all LinkID values are
>>>>> relative
>>>>> to the immediate parent Device."
>>>>>
>>>>> There isn't any known implementation with more than one controller.
>>>>
>>>> But then it can come in "future" right. So lets try to make it future
>>>> proof by not using the link_id (we can expose that as a sysfs if people
>>>> want to know). So a global unique id needs to allocated (hint: idr or
>>>> equivalent) and used as master_id
>>>
>>> Can you clarify if you are asking for a global ID for Intel/ACPI
>>> platforms,
>>> or for DT as well? I can't figure out from the soundwire-controller.yaml
>>> definitions if there is already a notion of unique ID.
>>
>> If ACPI was unique, then I was planning to update the definition below
>> to include that. Given that it is not the case, let's make it agnostic to
>> underlying firmware.
>
> I am not sure I understand how this would be done.
>
> The call sequence is
>
> sdw_bus_master_add(bus)
>     sdw_master_device_add(bus, parent, fw_node)
>
> At the bus level, we don't have any information on which controller the
> bus is related to.
>
> We'd need to add an argument to sdw_bus_master_add() and have the
> controller unique ID be allocated outside of the SoundWire core, hence
> my question on whether the DT definition should not be extended.

And btw I don't think it makes sense to add a new definition for Intel.
We already have a notion of HDaudio bus->idx that's set to zero since we
don't have a case for multiple HDaudio controllers.

if we ever do have more than once controller, then we should rely on
HDaudio bus->idx as the identifier and not create one specifically for
SoundWire - which means as I mentioned above passing an argument and not
defining a controller ID in the SoundWire core.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-05-12 19:01    [W:0.074 / U:0.056 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site