Re: [net-next 1/3] ice: Initialize and register platform device to provide RDMA

Greg KH
2019-07-04T12:42:53Z

On Thu, Jul 04, 2019 at 12:37:33PM +0000, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 04, 2019 at 02:29:50PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 04, 2019 at 12:16:41PM +0000, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 07:12:50PM -0700, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> > > > From: Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com>
> > > >
> > > > The RDMA block does not advertise on the PCI bus or any other bus.
> > > > Thus the ice driver needs to provide access to the RDMA hardware block
> > > > via a virtual bus; utilize the platform bus to provide this access.
> > > >
> > > > This patch initializes the driver to support RDMA as well as creates
> > > > and registers a platform device for the RDMA driver to register to. At
> > > > this point the driver is fully initialized to register a platform
> > > > driver, however, can not yet register as the ops have not been
> > > > implemented.
> > >
> > > I think you need Greg's ack on all this driver stuff - particularly
> > > that a platform_device is OK.
> >
> > A platform_device is almost NEVER ok.
> >
> > Don't abuse it, make a real device on a real bus. If you don't have a
> > real bus and just need to create a device to hang other things off of,
> > then use the virtual one, that's what it is there for.
>
> Ideally I'd like to see all the RDMA drivers that connect to ethernet
> drivers use some similar scheme.

Why? They should be attached to a "real" device, why make any up?

> Should it be some generic virtual bus?

There is a generic virtual bus today.

> This is for a PCI device that plugs into multiple subsystems in the
> kernel, ie it has net driver functionality, rdma functionality, some
> even have SCSI functionality

Sounds like a MFD device, why aren't you using that functionality
instead?

thanks,

greg k-h