The "big" difference is that probe is called by core (asoc) and not by driver onto themselves.. IMO that needs to go away.
What I did is not different from what existed already with platform devices. They were manually created, weren't they?
Manual creation of device based on a requirement is different, did I ask you why you are creating device :)
I am simple asking you not to call probe in the driver. If you need that, move it to core! We do not want these kind of things in the drivers...
What core are you talking about?
The SOF intel driver needs to create a device, which will then be bound with a SoundWire master driver.
What I am doing is no different from what your team did with platform_register_device, I am really lost on what you are asking.
FWIW, the implementation here follows what was suggested for Greybus 'Host Devices' [1] [2], so it's not like I am creating any sort of dangerous precedent.
[1] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/greybus/es2.c#L1275 [2] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/greybus/hd.c#L124
And if you look closely all this work is done by core not by drivers! Drivers _should_ never do all this, it is the job of core to do that for you.
Please look at the code again, you have a USB probe that will manually call the GreyBus device creation.
static int ap_probe(struct usb_interface *interface, const struct usb_device_id *id) { hd = gb_hd_create(&es2_driver, &udev->dev,
static struct usb_driver es2_ap_driver = { .name = "es2_ap_driver", .probe = ap_probe, <<< code above .disconnect = ap_disconnect, .id_table = id_table, .soft_unbind = 1, };
Look closely the driver es2 calls into greybus core hd.c and gets the work done, subtle but a big differances in the approaches..
I am sorry, I have absolutely no idea what you are referring to.
The code I copy/pasted here makes no call to the greybus core, it's ap_probe -> gb_hd_create. No core involved. If I am mistaken, please show me what I got wrong.