On 30-04-20, 02:51, Bard Liao wrote:
@@ -24,9 +24,14 @@ int sdw_bus_master_add(struct sdw_bus *bus, struct device *parent, struct sdw_master_prop *prop = NULL; int ret;
- if (!bus->dev) {
pr_err("SoundWire bus has no device\n");return -ENODEV;
This check is removed and not moved into sdw_master_device_add() either, can you add here or in patch 1 and keep checking the parent device please
+int sdw_master_device_add(struct sdw_bus *bus, struct device *parent,
struct fwnode_handle *fwnode)+{
- struct sdw_master_device *md;
- int ret;
- if (!bus)
return -EINVAL;- /*
* Unlike traditional devices, there's no allocation here since the* sdw_master_device is embedded in the bus structure.*/
Looking at this and empty sdw_master_device_release() above, makes me wonder if it is a wise move? Should we rather allocate the sdw_master_device() and then free that up in sdw_master_device_release() or it is really overkill given that this is called when we remove the sdw_bus instance as well...
- 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.