Re: [RFC PATCH 00/11] [RFC] Device / Driver and PCI Rust abstractions

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 09:50:01PM +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 08:16:19PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 08:14:57PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 07:25:37PM +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> > > > This patch sereis implements basic generic device / driver Rust abstractions,
> > > > as well as some basic PCI abstractions.
> > > > 
> > > > This patch series is sent in the context of [1], and the corresponding patch
> > > > series [2], which contains some basic DRM Rust abstractions and a stub
> > > > implementation of the Nova GPU driver.
> > > > 
> > > > Nova is intended to be developed upstream, starting out with just a stub driver
> > > > to lift some initial required infrastructure upstream. A more detailed
> > > > explanation can be found in [1].
> > > > 
> > > > Some patches, which implement the generic device / driver Rust abstractions have
> > > > been sent a couple of weeks ago already [3]. For those patches the following
> > > > changes have been made since then:
> > > > 
> > > > - remove RawDevice::name()
> > > > - remove rust helper for dev_name() and dev_get_drvdata()
> > > > - use AlwaysRefCounted for struct Device
> > > > - drop trait RawDevice entirely in favor of AsRef and provide
> > > >   Device::from_raw(), Device::as_raw() and Device::as_ref() instead
> > > > - implement RevocableGuard
> > > > - device::Data, remove resources and replace it with a Devres abstraction
> > > > - implement Devres abstraction for resources
> > 
> > Ah, here's the difference from the last time, sorry, it wasn't obvious.
> > 
> > Still nothing about proper handling and use of 'remove' in the context
> > of all of this, that's something you really really really need to get
> > right if you want to attempt to have a driver in rust interact with the
> > driver core properly.
> 
> We were right in the middle of discussing about the correct wording when I sent
> those patches the first time. There were some replies from my side, e.g. [1] and
> another reply from Wedson [2] about this, which you did not want to reply to any
> more.
> 
> I'm not saying I insist on not changing those comments up, but first we have to
> agree on how we want them to be rephrased, especially since from the
> discussions so far I got the impression that we might talk a bit past each
> other.
> 
> Hence, I'd propose to just continue the discussion, where we need to.

See my responses in this thread, let's continue this there.

thanks,

greg k-h