[PATCH v2 1/6] Add ancillary bus support

[Dan Williams]

On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 1:00 AM Leon Romanovsky <leon at kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 08, 2020 at 12:38:00AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 12:01 AM Leon Romanovsky <leon at kernel.org> wrote:
> > [..]
> > > All stated above is my opinion, it can be different from yours.
> >
> > Yes, but we need to converge to move this forward. Jason was involved
> > in the current organization for registration, Greg was angling for
> > this to be core functionality. I have use cases outside of RDMA and
> > netdev. Parav was ok with the current organization. The SOF folks
> > already have a proposed incorporation of it. The argument I am hearing
> > is that "this registration api seems hard for driver writers" when we
> > have several driver writers who have already taken a look and can make
> > it work. If you want to follow on with a simpler wrappers for your use
> > case, great, but I do not yet see anyone concurring with your opinion
> > that the current organization is irretrievably broken or too obscure
> > to use.
>
> Can it be that I'm first one to use this bus for very large driver (>120K LOC)
> that has 5 different ->probe() flows?
>
> For example, this https://lore.kernel.org/linux-rdma/20201006172317.GN1874917@unreal/
> hints to me that this bus wasn't used with anything complex as it was initially intended.

I missed that. Yes, I agree that's broken.

>
> And regarding registration, I said many times that init()/add() scheme is ok, the inability
> to call to uninit() after add() failure is not ok from my point of view.

Ok, I got to the wrong conclusion about your position.