All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: gregkh@suse.de (Greg KH)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 2/6] drivers/base: add bus for System-on-Chip devices
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:16:16 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20111017161616.GA5108@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1318852378-14180-3-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org>

On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 12:52:54PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> Traditionally, any System-on-Chip based platform creates a flat list
> of platform_devices directly under /sys/devices/platform.
> 
> In order to give these some better structure, this introduces a new
> bus type for soc_devices that are registered with the new
> soc_device_register() function.  All devices that are on the same
> chip should then be registered as child devices of the soc device.
> 
> The soc bus also exports a few standardised device attributes which
> allow user space to query the specific type of soc.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>

The code is much better, and smaller, but there's still some issues with
it:

> +static ssize_t soc_info_get(struct device *dev,
> +			    struct device_attribute *attr,
> +			    char *buf);
> +
> +static DEVICE_ATTR(machine,  S_IRUGO, soc_info_get,  NULL);
> +static DEVICE_ATTR(family,   S_IRUGO, soc_info_get,  NULL);
> +static DEVICE_ATTR(soc_id,   S_IRUGO, soc_info_get,  NULL);
> +static DEVICE_ATTR(revision, S_IRUGO, soc_info_get,  NULL);
> +
> +static ssize_t soc_info_get(struct device *dev,
> +			    struct device_attribute *attr,
> +			    char *buf)
> +{
> +	struct soc_device *soc_dev =
> +		container_of(dev, struct soc_device, dev);
> +
> +	if (attr == &dev_attr_machine)
> +		return sprintf(buf, "%s\n", soc_dev->attr->machine);
> +	if (attr == &dev_attr_family)
> +		return sprintf(buf, "%s\n", soc_dev->attr->family);
> +	if (attr == &dev_attr_revision)
> +		return sprintf(buf, "%s\n", soc_dev->attr->revision);
> +	if (attr == &dev_attr_soc_id)
> +		return sprintf(buf, "%s\n", soc_dev->attr->soc_id);
> +
> +	return -EINVAL;
> +
> +}

If you move around things a bit here, you can save 4 lines of code,
please do so.

> +
> +struct bus_type soc_bus_type = {
> +	.name  = "soc",
> +};
> +
> +static int __init soc_bus_register(void)
> +{
> +	return bus_register(&soc_bus_type);
> +}
> +core_initcall(soc_bus_register);

No unregister?

> +struct attribute *soc_attr[] = {
> +	&dev_attr_machine.attr,
> +	&dev_attr_family.attr,
> +	&dev_attr_soc_id.attr,
> +	&dev_attr_revision.attr,
> +	NULL,
> +};
> +
> +struct attribute_group soc_attr_group = {
> +	.attrs = soc_attr,
> +};
> +
> +struct device *soc_device_register(struct soc_device_attribute *soc_dev_attr)
> +{
> +	struct soc_device *soc_dev;
> +	static atomic_t soc_device_num = ATOMIC_INIT(0);

No, please don't do this, use the proper kernel interface to dynamically
handle numbering devices (hint, if you unload a SOC device, you will
never reclaim that device number, which isn't that nice.)

> +struct soc_device_attribute {
> +	const char *machine;
> +	const char *family;
> +	const char *revision;
> +	const char *soc_id;
> +};

What happens if one of these attributes is NULL?  Please check for that
when you create the attributes so that you don't create an attribute you
don't want to.

> +
> +struct soc_device {
> +	struct device dev;
> +	struct soc_device_attribute *attr;
> +};

Why is this needed to be defined here?  It should be in the .c file as
no external code needs to know what it looks like.

thanks,

greg k-h

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de>
To: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linus.walleij@stericsson.com,
	jamie@jamieiles.com, arnd@arndb.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] drivers/base: add bus for System-on-Chip devices
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:16:16 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20111017161616.GA5108@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1318852378-14180-3-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org>

On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 12:52:54PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> Traditionally, any System-on-Chip based platform creates a flat list
> of platform_devices directly under /sys/devices/platform.
> 
> In order to give these some better structure, this introduces a new
> bus type for soc_devices that are registered with the new
> soc_device_register() function.  All devices that are on the same
> chip should then be registered as child devices of the soc device.
> 
> The soc bus also exports a few standardised device attributes which
> allow user space to query the specific type of soc.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>

The code is much better, and smaller, but there's still some issues with
it:

> +static ssize_t soc_info_get(struct device *dev,
> +			    struct device_attribute *attr,
> +			    char *buf);
> +
> +static DEVICE_ATTR(machine,  S_IRUGO, soc_info_get,  NULL);
> +static DEVICE_ATTR(family,   S_IRUGO, soc_info_get,  NULL);
> +static DEVICE_ATTR(soc_id,   S_IRUGO, soc_info_get,  NULL);
> +static DEVICE_ATTR(revision, S_IRUGO, soc_info_get,  NULL);
> +
> +static ssize_t soc_info_get(struct device *dev,
> +			    struct device_attribute *attr,
> +			    char *buf)
> +{
> +	struct soc_device *soc_dev =
> +		container_of(dev, struct soc_device, dev);
> +
> +	if (attr == &dev_attr_machine)
> +		return sprintf(buf, "%s\n", soc_dev->attr->machine);
> +	if (attr == &dev_attr_family)
> +		return sprintf(buf, "%s\n", soc_dev->attr->family);
> +	if (attr == &dev_attr_revision)
> +		return sprintf(buf, "%s\n", soc_dev->attr->revision);
> +	if (attr == &dev_attr_soc_id)
> +		return sprintf(buf, "%s\n", soc_dev->attr->soc_id);
> +
> +	return -EINVAL;
> +
> +}

If you move around things a bit here, you can save 4 lines of code,
please do so.

> +
> +struct bus_type soc_bus_type = {
> +	.name  = "soc",
> +};
> +
> +static int __init soc_bus_register(void)
> +{
> +	return bus_register(&soc_bus_type);
> +}
> +core_initcall(soc_bus_register);

No unregister?

> +struct attribute *soc_attr[] = {
> +	&dev_attr_machine.attr,
> +	&dev_attr_family.attr,
> +	&dev_attr_soc_id.attr,
> +	&dev_attr_revision.attr,
> +	NULL,
> +};
> +
> +struct attribute_group soc_attr_group = {
> +	.attrs = soc_attr,
> +};
> +
> +struct device *soc_device_register(struct soc_device_attribute *soc_dev_attr)
> +{
> +	struct soc_device *soc_dev;
> +	static atomic_t soc_device_num = ATOMIC_INIT(0);

No, please don't do this, use the proper kernel interface to dynamically
handle numbering devices (hint, if you unload a SOC device, you will
never reclaim that device number, which isn't that nice.)

> +struct soc_device_attribute {
> +	const char *machine;
> +	const char *family;
> +	const char *revision;
> +	const char *soc_id;
> +};

What happens if one of these attributes is NULL?  Please check for that
when you create the attributes so that you don't create an attribute you
don't want to.

> +
> +struct soc_device {
> +	struct device dev;
> +	struct soc_device_attribute *attr;
> +};

Why is this needed to be defined here?  It should be in the .c file as
no external code needs to know what it looks like.

thanks,

greg k-h

  parent reply	other threads:[~2011-10-17 16:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 67+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-10-17 11:52 [PATCH 0/6] ux500: Export SoC information and some platform clean-up Lee Jones
2011-10-17 11:52 ` Lee Jones
2011-10-17 11:52 ` [PATCH 1/6] mach-ux500: pass parent pointer to each platform device Lee Jones
2011-10-17 11:52   ` Lee Jones
2011-10-17 11:52 ` [PATCH 2/6] drivers/base: add bus for System-on-Chip devices Lee Jones
2011-10-17 11:52   ` Lee Jones
2011-10-17 12:13   ` Jamie Iles
2011-10-17 12:13     ` Jamie Iles
2011-10-17 16:16   ` Greg KH [this message]
2011-10-17 16:16     ` Greg KH
2011-10-17 18:03     ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-10-17 18:03       ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-10-17 18:25       ` Greg KH
2011-10-17 18:25         ` Greg KH
2011-10-18 14:00         ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-10-18 14:00           ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-10-18 14:44           ` Greg KH
2011-10-18 14:44             ` Greg KH
2011-10-18 11:12     ` Lee Jones
2011-10-18 11:12       ` Lee Jones
2011-10-18 14:14       ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-10-18 14:14         ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-10-18 14:41         ` Greg KH
2011-10-18 14:41           ` Greg KH
2011-10-18 14:43       ` Greg KH
2011-10-18 14:43         ` Greg KH
2011-10-17 16:18   ` Greg KH
2011-10-17 16:18     ` Greg KH
2011-10-18 11:14     ` Lee Jones
2011-10-18 11:14       ` Lee Jones
2011-10-18 14:05       ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-10-18 14:05         ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-10-18 14:15         ` Jamie Iles
2011-10-18 14:15           ` Jamie Iles
2011-10-18 14:38           ` Greg KH
2011-10-18 14:38             ` Greg KH
2011-10-18 14:53           ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-10-18 14:53             ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-10-18 14:56             ` Jamie Iles
2011-10-18 14:56               ` Jamie Iles
2011-10-17 11:52 ` [PATCH 3/6] Documentation: add information for new sysfs soc bus functionality Lee Jones
2011-10-17 11:52   ` Lee Jones
2011-10-17 11:52 ` [PATCH 4/6] mach-ux500: export System-on-Chip information ux500 via sysfs Lee Jones
2011-10-17 11:52   ` Lee Jones
2011-10-17 11:52 ` [PATCH 5/6] mach-ux500: move top level platform devices in sysfs to /sys/devices/socX Lee Jones
2011-10-17 11:52   ` Lee Jones
2011-10-17 11:52 ` [PATCH 6/6] mach-ux500: remove intermediary add_platform_device* functions Lee Jones
2011-10-17 11:52   ` Lee Jones
2011-10-17 11:59   ` Jamie Iles
2011-10-17 11:59     ` Jamie Iles
2011-10-19 14:43     ` Lee Jones
2011-10-19 14:43       ` Lee Jones
2011-10-19 14:45       ` Jamie Iles
2011-10-19 14:45         ` Jamie Iles
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2012-01-20 16:10 [PATCH 0/6] ux500: Export SoC information and some platform clean-up Lee Jones
2012-01-20 16:10 ` [PATCH 2/6] drivers/base: add bus for System-on-Chip devices Lee Jones
2012-01-20 16:36   ` Greg KH
     [not found]     ` <CANmRt2gZe7dfRe5T8fS-1LGkeQXOBzcrbzL8xU+J9M7X4ZuDrA@mail.gmail.com>
2012-01-20 18:20       ` Greg KH
2012-01-20 16:39   ` Greg KH
     [not found]     ` <CANmRt2j4woAAg3dEtyQG4rjxRQ5Sx+4OW84Mathk4_YrFTjChQ@mail.gmail.com>
2012-01-20 18:10       ` Greg KH
2012-01-21 17:08 [PATCH 0/6] ux500: Export SoC information and some platform clean-up Lee Jones
2012-01-21 17:08 ` [PATCH 2/6] drivers/base: add bus for System-on-Chip devices Lee Jones
2012-01-28  1:05   ` Greg KH
2012-01-30 17:58     ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-01-30 18:34       ` Greg KH
2012-02-01  9:23 [PATCH 0/6] ux500: Export SoC information and some platform clean-up Lee Jones
2012-02-01  9:23 ` [PATCH 2/6] drivers/base: add bus for System-on-Chip devices Lee Jones
2012-02-01 15:52   ` Jamie Iles
2012-02-01 16:55     ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-02-06 19:22 [PATCH 0/6] ux500: Export SoC information and some platform clean-up Lee Jones
2012-02-06 19:22 ` [PATCH 2/6] drivers/base: add bus for System-on-Chip devices Lee Jones

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20111017161616.GA5108@suse.de \
    --to=gregkh@suse.de \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.