[PATCH v2 1/6] Add ancillary bus support

[Ertman, David M]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Leon Romanovsky <leon at kernel.org>
> Sent: Thursday, October 8, 2020 1:00 AM
> To: Williams, Dan J <dan.j.williams at intel.com>
> Cc: Ertman, David M <david.m.ertman at intel.com>; Parav Pandit
> <parav at nvidia.com>; Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-
> louis.bossart at linux.intel.com>; alsa-devel at alsa-project.org;
> parav at mellanox.com; tiwai at suse.de; netdev at vger.kernel.org;
> ranjani.sridharan at linux.intel.com; fred.oh at linux.intel.com; linux-
> rdma at vger.kernel.org; dledford at redhat.com; broonie at kernel.org; Jason
> Gunthorpe <jgg at nvidia.com>; gregkh at linuxfoundation.org;
> kuba at kernel.org; Saleem, Shiraz <shiraz.saleem at intel.com>;
> davem at davemloft.net; Patil, Kiran <kiran.patil at intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] Add ancillary bus support
> 
> 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 at unreal/
> hints to me that this bus wasn't used with anything complex as it was initially
> intended.
> 
> 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.

So, to address your concern of not being able to call an uninit after a add failure
I can break the unregister flow into two steps also.  An uninit and a delete to mirror
the registration process's init and add.

Would this make the registration and un-registration flow acceptable?

-DaveE



> 
> Thanks