From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann)
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 19:22:04 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 1/5] Framework for exporting System-on-Chip information
	via sysfs
In-Reply-To: <20110902163136.GB5331@suse.de>
References: <1314880043-22517-1-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org>
	<4E609784.3080507@linaro.org> <20110902163136.GB5331@suse.de>
Message-ID: <201109021922.04449.arnd@arndb.de>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Friday 02 September 2011, Greg KH wrote:
> no.
> 
> How did you pass the attribute data into this core so that it knows how
> to get to it?  You didn't, which is a mess.
> 
> How about something like:
>         struct soc_device *soc_device_create(struct device *parent, struct soc_device_attributes *attr);
> 
> That would have the proper way to handle lifetime rules, userspace
> notificatation of userpace, placement in sysfs, and all the other good
> stuff.

I early on objected to the individual soc driver providing a set of
attributes, because we really want the attributes to follow a
common interface and I want to make it *hard* to add arbitrary
other attributes that are not documented.

> > >> +
> > >> +  if (!soc_count) {
> > >> +          /* Register top-level SoC device '/sys/devices/soc' */
> > >> +          ret = device_register(&soc_grandparent);
> > > 
> > > device_register can't be called with a spinlock.  You must have gotten
> > > lucky in your testing, if you tested this.
> > > 
> > > Anyway, this is not needed at all, please don't create "dummy" devices
> > > in the sysfs tree, properly hook up your new device to where it should
> > > be in the device tree.
> > 
> > We need a /sys/devices/soc, how else can this be done?
> 
> No you do not not, why would you think so?

Well, where is all comes from is the desire to have a way from user space
to find these devices, based on some path in the device tree. We had
discussed putting it into

/sys/class/soc
/sys/bus/soc
/sys/devices/platform/soc
/sys/devices/platform/soc%d

and a few others and eventually settled on /sys/devices/soc.

> > Would it make you happier if I called it a bus?
> 
> Yes, see the other response about creating a bus for these, which would
> give you /sys/bus/soc/ where you can properly enumerate your devices,
> which is what I think you want to be able to do, right?

I think that would be a reasonable interface, but how does this work
when the device was created by of_platform_bus_probe? Should we
assume that any top-level device in the flattened device tree is
a soc? How about just adding a child device in each soc node that
is registered to the soc_bus_type?

That would end up looking like

/sys/devices/db8500
		   /soc0   # this is the soc device
		   /i2c-0  # and here are the other platform devices below db8500 
		   /spi-0
    /bus/soc/devices/soc0 -> ../../../devices/db8500/soc0
    /bus/platform/devices/i2c-0 -> ../../../devices/db8500/i2c-0

	Arnd