From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 58543194A59 for ; Fri, 4 Apr 2025 12:35:51 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.17 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1743770153; cv=none; b=LE4XLWGneyHPp9X6KzXYZ+PGD4QdO1ghujoLxSj1sl2qa0yzaomRwCEN8Rb6wIYnxaNYv9lKp2qRCuuh1acEq0CixGoNarPJLl6gJdwzve17pnun41Q5rLwQtTjce/7HJ+moZNKcm7UnoWSOACIummxDjl3xjViQFVmgsxp1tsU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1743770153; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Yi1snGNDfedBLPnZFca8CbzM3Eod2xACBdn+8tJc8kA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=IwbqETK1EIw38INuypgjjkZQidAv0dDWhc+gQGWh1VmiAL2+wqzdxPHbqPGZWycQqUrN5oqtfiWPPBzTyc3GXFMiejEUevfxduKRz8kMZjdrEPEIvR7GMrKNuBWwi4nMI08tT6lDCaOV4SJKLAjsNqXQAISEJOEBRDg/3T+4ihA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=EjsjjqO6; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.17 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="EjsjjqO6" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1743770151; x=1775306151; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=Yi1snGNDfedBLPnZFca8CbzM3Eod2xACBdn+8tJc8kA=; b=EjsjjqO6hVdehkfnXvXZpUWe7elmkERegexoI66Yv1Q74SoaoA+R6p4A JZkI0PTx4z7GAnyMZ3inDVnLO7SAcwf5VYah0unci2OjyLZh4zXrXdkWl wKnDtTiOQIEEAPdLCzHMJipDFYVsBhe9xMe6kYHnCcFT6B0SC/sOYl3Tv +tYz78X1DlIkbwmVQUJJkRJGfPHw7rGcnQphXFBxXbEEcAqcgcZLAeAWZ RcgSN/twQYUxyhBs2Or23T3ZjUpa6l03Ek8RG3MK8PXeZbXJTP/xkBsXr I4KnqG0JBr5KcgoZ+DKFxYp0NqskUMh2WMgKsYGPZg1O3Qe/JAz4FDgby A==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: KA+fXcibQJ2GSy6C+NiSyw== X-CSE-MsgGUID: BqDpSu84RT6yOGM8o7q7vg== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11393"; a="45093843" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.15,188,1739865600"; d="scan'208";a="45093843" Received: from orviesa005.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.145]) by fmvoesa111.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 04 Apr 2025 05:35:50 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: xDoJ74pIRF6yKkTWnQSK1g== X-CSE-MsgGUID: +8d4fhfQQvWZJPDU9WCvgA== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.15,188,1739865600"; d="scan'208";a="132506489" Received: from black.fi.intel.com ([10.237.72.28]) by orviesa005.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 04 Apr 2025 05:35:49 -0700 Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2025 15:35:45 +0300 From: Raag Jadav To: Andy Shevchenko Cc: Greg KH , david.m.ertman@intel.com, ira.weiny@intel.com, lee@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] mfd: core: Support auxiliary device Message-ID: References: <20250403110053.1274521-1-raag.jadav@intel.com> <2025040336-ethically-regulate-3594@gregkh> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Fri, Apr 04, 2025 at 03:29:52PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Fri, Apr 04, 2025 at 02:36:41PM +0300, Raag Jadav wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 03, 2025 at 03:02:47PM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 03, 2025 at 04:30:53PM +0530, Raag Jadav wrote: > > ... > > > > > 2. Should we allow auxiliary drivers to manage their own resources > > > > (MEM, IO, IRQ etc)? > > > > > > The resources are all shared by the "parent" device, that's what makes > > > aux drivers work, they need to handle this as there is no unique way to > > > carve up the resources here. > > > > > > So I don't know how you would do this, sorry. > > > > Perhaps we can carve it up in mfd_add_devices() using start and end members > > and error out if they overlap. > > I don't think we want a flag day. If anything, it should be a new call. Yes, I mean in mfd_add_auxiliary_device() (as in this patch). > > Can't we still have a struct resource that is unique to that specific > > auxiliary device? > > Oh, believe me, you won't do that. Save yourself from _a lot_ of troubles with > different cases when the shared resources are required. I think we already have ignore_resource_conflicts flag as part of mfd_cell, no? Raag