On 30-04-20, 11:24, Bard liao wrote:
On 4/28/2020 3:51 PM, Vinod Koul wrote:
On 28-04-20, 08:55, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 12:19:51PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
On 28-04-20, 08:37, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 10:01:44AM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > That is not true for everyone, it is only true for Intel, pls call that > > out as well... > Why is it not true for everyone? How else do you get the pm stuff back > to your hardware? The rest of the world would do using the real controller device. For example the soundwire controller on Qualcomm devices is enumerated as a DT device and is using these...
If Intel had a standalone controller or enumerated as individual functions, it would have been a PCI device and would manage as such
If it is not a standalone controller, what exactly is it? I thought it was an acpi device, am I mistaken?
What is the device that the proper soundwire controller driver binds to on an Intel-based system?
The HDA controller which is a PCI device. The device represent HDA function, DSP and Soundwire controller instances (yes it is typically more than one instance)
Then those "instances" should be split up into individual devices that a driver can bind to. See the work happening on the "virtual" bus for examples of how that can be done.
Yes removing platform devices is the goal for Intel now :) Pierre & Bard have been diligently trying to solve this.
Only difference is the means to end goal. I am not convinced that this should be in soundwire subsystem.
Looks like folks are trying to review and port to use this bus. Makes sense to me.. https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/c5197d2f-3840-d304-6b09-d334cae81294@linux.in...
A platform device better not be being used here, I'm afraid to look at the code now...
Well if the plan for 'virtual-bus' goes well, it should be a simple replacement of platform->virtual for Intel driver. Rest of the driver should not be impacted :)
We can't expect when will 'virtual-bus' be upstream and it's not feasible to wait forever. Can we move forward with current solution and switch to 'virtual-bus' whenever it is upstream?
the move from platform-device to virtual-device should happen once the virtual-bus' is accepted upstream. till then imo you should continue with current platform device and once you have virtual-bus upstream, replace it with virtual-device. Note: I am going to hold you on that :)
Rest of the pieces like sdw_master_device and sysfs parts are not dependent upon this and should be sent for review and we can merge when ready, hopefully for 5.8.
Thanks