lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [May]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [alsa-devel] [RFC PATCH 2/7] soundwire: add Slave sysfs support
On 06-05-19, 11:46, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
> On 5/6/19 11:22 AM, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > On 06-05-19, 17:19, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 06, 2019 at 09:42:35AM -0500, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +int sdw_sysfs_slave_init(struct sdw_slave *slave)
> > > > > > +{
> > > > > > + struct sdw_slave_sysfs *sysfs;
> > > > > > + unsigned int src_dpns, sink_dpns, i, j;
> > > > > > + int err;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + if (slave->sysfs) {
> > > > > > + dev_err(&slave->dev, "SDW Slave sysfs is already initialized\n");
> > > > > > + err = -EIO;
> > > > > > + goto err_ret;
> > > > > > + }
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + sysfs = kzalloc(sizeof(*sysfs), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > >
> > > > > Same question as patch 1, why a new device?
> > > >
> > > > yes it's the same open. In this case, the slave devices are defined at a
> > > > different level so it's also confusing to create a device to represent the
> > > > slave properties. The code works but I am not sure the initial directions
> > > > are correct.
> > >
> > > You can just make a subdir for your attributes by using the attribute
> > > group name, if a subdirectory is needed just to keep things a bit more
> > > organized.
> >
> > The key here is 'a subdir' which is not the case here. We did discuss
> > this in the initial patches for SoundWire which had sysfs :)
> >
> > The way MIPI disco spec organized properties, we have dp0 and dpN
> > properties each of them requires to have a subdir of their own and that
> > was the reason why I coded it to be creating a device.
>
> Vinod, the question was not for dp0 and dpN, it's fine to have
> subdirectories there, but rather why we need separate devices for the master
> and slave properties.

Slave does not have a separate device. IIRC the properties for Slave are
in /sys/bus/soundwire/device/<slave>/...

For master yes we can skip the device creation, it was done for
consistency sake of having these properties ties into sys/bus/soundwire/

I don't mind if they are shown up in respective device node (PCI/platform
etc) /sys/bus/foo/device/<>

But for creating subdirectories you would need the new dpX devices.

HTH

>
> >
> > Do we have a better way to handle this?
> >
> > > Otherwise, you need to mess with having multiple "types" of struct
> > > device all associated with the same bus. It is possible, and not that
> > > hard, but I don't think you are doing that here.
> > >
> > > thnaks,
> > >
> > > greg k-h
> >

--
~Vinod

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-05-07 07:20    [W:0.078 / U:1.152 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site