From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 03/18] platform/x86: intel_scu_ipc: Introduce new SCU
 IPC API
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 13:43:41 +0200
Message-ID: <20200212114341.GW2667@lahna.fi.intel.com>
References: <20200211132603.73509-1-mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
 <20200211132603.73509-4-mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
 <20200211154841.GF10400@smile.fi.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200211154841.GF10400@smile.fi.intel.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>, Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, x86@kernel.org, Zha Qipeng <qipeng.zha@intel.com>, "David E . Box" <david.e.box@linux.intel.com>, Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>, Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com>, Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@linux-watchdog.org>, platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: platform-driver-x86.vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 05:48:41PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 04:25:48PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > The current SCU IPC API has been operating on a single instance and
> > there has been no way to pin the providing module in place when the SCU
> > IPC is in use.
> > 
> > This implements a new API that takes the SCU IPC instance as first
> > parameter (NULL means the single instance is being used). The SCU IPC
> > instance can be retrieved by calling new function
> > intel_scu_ipc_dev_get() that take care of pinning the providing module
> > in place as long as intel_scu_ipc_dev_put() is not called.
> > 
> > The old API and constants that are still being used are left there to
> > support existing users that cannot be converted easily but they are put
> > to a separate header that is subject to be removed eventually.
> > Subsequent patches will convert most of the users over to the new API.
> 
> I'm thinking now if it would be better to do this in two steps, i.e. split out
> legacy header first and then introduce new API?

No problem doing that but I'm not sure what's the benefit over what is
done now?