Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] mfd: add support for Diolan DLN-2 devices

[Johan Hovold <johan-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>]

On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 09:00:10AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Sep 2014, Johan Hovold wrote:

> > No, no. USB is not a function of the MFD device, it's the transport.
> > Thus there should be no USB MFD-cell. No subdriver can work without it.
> > 
> > And the USB id belongs in the MFD-driver in the same way that an
> > i2c id (address) does.
> > 
> > Just like an MFD device with i2c as a transport, this driver would
> > function as an arbiter to a shared resource (i.e. the register space).
> > The reason it seems much more USB-centric than an i2c-mfd driver is that
> > that transport API is simpler and some code have also already been
> > generalised (e.g. regmap), whereas we appear to have only two USB
> > mfd-drivers thus far.
> > 
> > The viperboard is perhaps a bad example in so far that it has pushed the
> > transport details down into the subdrivers (and thus into gpio, i2c and
> > iio subsystems) instead of handling it one place.
> 
> Thanks for your explanation.  I take your point about the USB ID and I
> did say I was guessing that the USB part should exist as a child
> device.
> 
> So after your comments I decided to do a little investigation.  It
> appears that this MFD driver is _just_ using the common API which all
> other devices utilising USB comms are forced to use.  Is that correct?

Yes, it's using the low-level USB API, but there's a lot of higher-level
interfaces in place for (fairly) standard things such as the USB class
drivers or the USB serial subsystem.

> If so, I have a question.  Is there no way to hide more of the USB
> specifics inside a better, simpler API?  It looks like the drivers
> which use USB are subjected to a lot (too much) of what might be
> considered internals.  Or is it just that the client has to tinker
> with too many dials to get anything sensible out? *shudders*

Unfortunately, anything that does not already have a driver is likely to
use some vendor-specific protocol and therefore must use the low-level
API.

> > I haven't looked at the details of the protocol for the device in
> > question, but it might even be possible to use regmap here (as I
> > mentioned in my comments on v1).
> 
> Obviously that would be preferred.

Simple register-based USB MFD devices (e.g. only using control
transfers) are conceivable though, and if we start seeing a lot of those
(which I doubt) perhaps that part could be refactored as a regmap bus.

Johan