[PATCH] soundwire: add slave device to linked list after device_register()

[Liao, Bard]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart at linux.intel.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2021 2:31 AM
> To: Vinod Koul <vkoul at kernel.org>; Bard Liao <yung-
> chuan.liao at linux.intel.com>
> Cc: alsa-devel at alsa-project.org; gregkh at linuxfoundation.org; linux-
> kernel at vger.kernel.org; hui.wang at canonical.com;
> srinivas.kandagatla at linaro.org; Kale, Sanyog R <sanyog.r.kale at intel.com>;
> rander.wang at linux.intel.com; Liao, Bard <bard.liao at intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] soundwire: add slave device to linked list after
> device_register()
> 
> Hi Vinod,
> 
> >> We currently add the slave device to a linked list before
> >> device_register(), and then remove it if device_register() fails.
> >>
> >> It's not clear why this sequence was necessary, this patch moves the
> >> linked list management to after the device_register().
> >
> > Maybe add a comment :-)
> >
> > The reason here is that before calling device_register() we need to be
> > ready and completely initialized. device_register is absolutely the
> > last step in the flow, always.
> >
> > The probe of the device can happen and before you get a chance to add
> > to list, many number of things can happen.. So adding after is not a
> > very good idea :)
> 
> Can you describe that 'many number of things' in the SoundWire context?
> 
> While you are correct in general on the use of device_register(), in this specific
> case the device registration and the possible Slave driver probe if there's a
> match doesn't seem to use this linked list.
> 
> This sdw_slave_add() routine is called while parsing ACPI/DT tables and at this
> point the bus isn't functional. This sequence only deals with device registration
> and driver probe, the actual activation and enumeration happen much later.
> What does matter is that by the time all ACPI/DT devices have been scanned all
> initialization is complete. The last part of the flow is not the device_register() at
> the individual peripheral level.
> 
> Even for the Qualcomm case, the steps are different:
> 
> 	ret = sdw_bus_master_add(&ctrl->bus, dev, dev->fwnode);
> 	if (ret) {
> 		dev_err(dev, "Failed to register Soundwire controller (%d)\n",
> 			ret);
> 		goto err_clk;
> 	}
> 
> 	qcom_swrm_init(ctrl); <<< that's where the bus is functional
> 
> Note that we are not going to lay on the tracks for this, this sequence was
> tagged by static analysis tools who don't understand that
> put_device() actually frees memory by way of the .release callback, but that led
> us to ask ourselves whether this sequence was actually necessary.

Hi Vinod,

Do you have any comment or objection after Pierre's explanation? 

Regards,
Bard