[PATCH 3/3] soundwire: bus_type: add sdw_master_device support

[Vinod Koul]

On 11-05-20, 08:04, Liao, Bard wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Vinod Koul <vkoul at kernel.org>
> > Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 2:32 PM
> > To: Bard Liao <yung-chuan.liao at linux.intel.com>
> > Cc: alsa-devel at alsa-project.org; linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org; tiwai at suse.de;
> > broonie at kernel.org; gregkh at linuxfoundation.org; jank at cadence.com;
> > srinivas.kandagatla at linaro.org; rander.wang at linux.intel.com;
> > ranjani.sridharan at linux.intel.com; hui.wang at canonical.com; pierre-
> > louis.bossart at linux.intel.com; Kale, Sanyog R <sanyog.r.kale at intel.com>;
> > Blauciak, Slawomir <slawomir.blauciak at intel.com>; Lin, Mengdong
> > <mengdong.lin at intel.com>; Liao, Bard <bard.liao at intel.com>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] soundwire: bus_type: add sdw_master_device support
> > 
> > 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
> 
> We will set bus->dev = &md->dev in the end of sdw_master_device_add().

We need to test if this is valid or not :)

> That's why we remove the test. But now I am wandering does it make sense
> to set bus->dev = &md->dev? Maybe it makes more sense to set bus->dev =
> sdw control device. 
> A follow up question is that should slave device a child of bus device or
> master device? I would prefer bus device if it makes sense. 
> I will check bus->dev and parent and remove bus->dev = &md->dev in the
> next version.

the parent is bus->dev and sdw_master_device created would be child of
this and should be set as such. You can remove it from bus object and
keep in sdw_master_device object, that is fine by me.

The sdw_slave is child of sdw_master_device now and looks to be set
correct.

-- 
~Vinod