[PATCH 0/6] Ancillary bus implementation and SOF multi-client support

[Greg KH]

On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 08:23:49PM +0000, Ertman, David M wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Greg KH <gregkh at linuxfoundation.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2020 12:14 AM
> > To: Ertman, David M <david.m.ertman at intel.com>
> > Cc: alsa-devel at alsa-project.org; tiwai at suse.de; broonie at kernel.org; pierre-
> > louis.bossart at linux.intel.com; Sridharan, Ranjani
> > <ranjani.sridharan at intel.com>; jgg at nvidia.com; parav at nvidia.com
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] Ancillary bus implementation and SOF multi-client
> > support
> > 
> > On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 03:50:45PM -0700, Dave Ertman wrote:
> > > The ancillary bus (then known as virtual bus) was originally submitted
> > > along with implementation code for the ice driver and irdma drive,
> > > causing the complication of also having dependencies in the rdma tree.
> > > This new submission is utilizing an ancillary bus consumer in only the
> > > sound driver tree to create the initial implementation and a single
> > > user.
> > 
> > So this will not work for the ice driver and/or irdma drivers?  It would
> > be great to see how they work for this as well as getting those
> > maintainers to review and sign off on this implementation as well.
> > Don't ignore those developers, that's a bit "odd", don't you think?
> > 
> > To drop them from the review process is actually kind of rude, what
> > happens if this gets merged without their input?
> > 
> > And the name, why was it changed and what does it mean?  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.
> 
> Through our internal review process, objections were raised on naming the
> new bus virtual bus. The main objection was that virtual bus was too close to virtio,
> virtchnl, etc., that /sys/bus/virtual would be confused with /sys/bus/virtio, and
> there is just a lot of 'virt' stuff in the kernel already.

We already have a virtual bus/location in the driver model today, has
that confused anyone?  I see this as an extension of that logic and
ideally, those users will be moved over to this interface over time as
well.

> Several names were suggested (like peer bus, which was shot down because in
> parts on the English speaking world the peerage means nobility), finally
> "ancillary bus" was arrived at by consensus of not hating it.

"not hating it", while sometimes is a good thing, for something that I
am going to have to tell everyone to go use, I would like to at least
"like it".  And right now I don't like it...

I think we should go back to "virtual" for now, or, if the people who
didn't like it on your "internal" reviews wish to participate here and
defend their choice, I would be glad to listen to that reasoning.

thanks,

greg k-h