From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934869Ab3BTK5f (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Feb 2013 05:57:35 -0500 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:3018 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934056Ab3BTK5e (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Feb 2013 05:57:34 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,699,1355126400"; d="scan'208";a="288159375" Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:57:31 +0100 From: Samuel Ortiz To: Tomas Winkler Cc: Arnd Bergmann , Greg KH , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [char-misc-next 01/12 v3] mei: Rename mei_device to mei_host Message-ID: <20130220105731.GT18295@sortiz-mobl> References: <1360694222-27632-1-git-send-email-sameo@linux.intel.com> <20130212212935.GJ20996@sortiz-mobl> <20130212213823.GA20745@kroah.com> <201302122309.01176.arnd@arndb.de> <20130213093907.GM20996@sortiz-mobl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 03:32:44PM +0200, Tomas Winkler wrote: > On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Samuel Ortiz wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 11:09:00PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > On Tuesday 12 February 2013, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Please let's find something that makes both hw and Linux happy > > > > > I still believe it makes sense to use mei_device for what we add to the MEI > > > > > bus. I'd be fine with mei_bus_device as well, but that would somehow look > > > > > a bit awkward. Greg, Arnd, any preference ? > > > > > > > > "mei_device" works the best for me. Tomas, what you think of as a "MEI > > > > Device" really is a "MEI Controller", it bridges the difference between > > > > the PCI bus and your new MEI bus, so you will need to start thinking of > > > > these things a bit differently now that you have created your own little > > > > virtual bus. > > > > > > Yes, I agree. mei_bus_device would also work as the name for the controller, > > > but not for the devices attached to it IMO. > > Tomas, I propose to switch to mei_controller instead of mei_host and keep the > > mei_device name for the devices we attach to the MEI bus. > > Does that work for you ? > > > > The issue is that when we added our virtual bus we haven't gave up on > /dev/mei backed by mei_device > This is the interface, defined in linux/mei.h which user space > applications use to connect to ME Clients within ME device. > Any ME client can be connected through this interface and we have few > legacy applications running for few years that use this interface so > we are not going to break them. > > What we've done now is we added a virtual bus so also in-kernel > applications/subsystems can more naturally connect to the ME Clients, > this connection is client specific. So the device that connect to the > bus is not an mei device but mei client device hence the name I've > proposed mei_cl_device. I don't have a strong opinion here, so that would be fine with me. Greg, Arnd, would mei_cl_device and mei_cl_driver be an acceptable compromise? Cheers, Samuel. -- Intel Open Source Technology Centre http://oss.intel.com/