-----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.
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