[lkml]   [2020]   [Jan]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [alsa-devel] [PATCH v5 09/17] soundwire: intel: remove platform devices and use 'Master Devices' instead

>>>> + /* let the SoundWire master driver to its probe */
>>>> + md->driver->probe(md, link);
>>> So you are invoking driver probe here.. That is typically role of driver
>>> core to do that.. If we need that, make driver core do that for you!
>>> That reminds me I am missing match code for master driver...
>> There is no match for the master because it doesn't have an existence in
>> ACPI. There are no _ADR or HID that can be used, the only thing that exists
>> is the Controller which has 4 sublinks. Each master must be added by hand.
>> Also the SoundWire master cannot be enumerated or matched against a
>> SoundWire bus, since it controls the bus itself (that would be a chicken and
>> egg problem). The SoundWire master would need to be matched on a parent bus
>> (which does not exist for Intel) since the hardware is embedded in a larger
>> audio cluster that's visible on PCI only.
>> Currently for Intel platforms, the SoundWire master device is created by the
>> SOF driver (via the abstraction in intel_init.c).
> That is okay for me, the thing that is bit confusing is having a probe
> etc and no match.. (more below)..
>>> So we seem to be somewhere is middle wrt driver probing here! IIUC this
>>> is not a full master driver, thats okay, but then it is not
>>> completely transparent either...
>>> I was somehow thinking that the driver will continue to be
>>> 'platform/acpi/of' driver and master device abstraction will be
>>> handled in the core (for example see how the busses like i2c handle
>>> this). The master device is created and used to represent but driver
>>> probing etc is not done
>> I2C controllers are typically PCI devices or have some sort of ACPI
>> description. This is not the case for SoundWire masters on Intel platforms,
> Well the world is not PCI/ACPI... We have controllers which are DT
> described and work in same manner as a PCI device.
Both DT and PCI would use a DIFFERENT matching on the parent bus, not a
matching provided by the SoundWire subsystem itself.

>> so even if I wanted to I would have no ability to implement any matching or
>> parent bus registration.
>> Also the notion of 'probe' does not necessarily mean that the device is
>> attached to a bus, we use DAI 'drivers' in ASoC and still have probe/remove
>> callbacks.
> The "big" difference is that probe is called by core (asoc) and not by
> driver onto themselves.. IMO that needs to go away.

What I did is not different from what existed already with platform
devices. They were manually created, weren't they?

>> And if you look at the definitions, we added additional callbacks since
>> probe/remove are not enough to deal with hardware restrictions:
>> For Intel platforms, we have a startup() callback which is only invoked once
>> the DSP is powered and the rails stable. Likewise we added an
>> 'autonomous_clock_stop()' callback which will be needed when the Linux
>> driver hands-over control of the hardware to the DSP firmware, e.g. to deal
>> with in-band wakes in D0i3.
>> FWIW, the implementation here follows what was suggested for Greybus 'Host
>> Devices' [1] [2], so it's not like I am creating any sort of dangerous
>> precedent.
>> [1]
>> [2]
> And if you look closely all this work is done by core not by drivers!
> Drivers _should_ never do all this, it is the job of core to do that for
> you.

Please look at the code again, you have a USB probe that will manually
call the GreyBus device creation.

static int ap_probe(struct usb_interface *interface,
const struct usb_device_id *id)
hd = gb_hd_create(&es2_driver, &udev->dev,

static struct usb_driver es2_ap_driver = {
.name = "es2_ap_driver",
.probe = ap_probe, <<< code above
.disconnect = ap_disconnect,
.id_table = id_table,
.soft_unbind = 1,

The master device probe suggested here is also called as part of the
parent SOF PCI device probe, same as this USB example. I really don't
see what your objection is, given that there is no way to deal with the
SoundWire controller as a independent entity for Intel platforms.

 \ /
  Last update: 2020-01-06 17:07    [W:0.619 / U:0.312 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site