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.