From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: "Arend van Spriel" <arend@broadcom.com>
Cc: "Rafał Miłecki" <zajec5@gmail.com>,
"George Kashperko" <george@znau.edu.ua>,
"Hauke Mehrtens" <hauke@hauke-m.de>,
"Russell King" <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
"Jonas Gorski" <jonas.gorski@gmail.com>,
"b43-dev@lists.infradead.org" <b43-dev@lists.infradead.org>,
"Greg KH" <greg@kroah.com>, "Andy Botting" <andy@andybotting.com>,
"Larry Finger" <Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net>
Subject: Re: Could I (ab)use bus (struct bus_type) for virtual Broadcom bus?
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 09:26:08 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201104200926.09110.arnd@arndb.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <op.vt76hofg3ri7v4@arend-laptop>
On Wednesday 20 April 2011 09:16:26 Arend van Spriel wrote:
> >
> > A platform device means something that cannot be probed, in every other
> > respect it is the same as other devices. From your explanation above,
> > it seems that you don't actually need to represent the cores on your
> > particular chips as struct device in Linux at all.
> >
> > If you wanted to use platform_device, the right way would probably
> > be an MFD device that creates multiple child devices (which end
> > up as platform_device, though you don't need to worry about that)
> > from the PCI driver. Then you could use the child devices completely
> > independent from one another.
> >
> > Since you say that the cores in this case are tightly coupled and
> > don't provide independent functionality to the system, there is
> > no need to represent them as devices.
>
> The case is a hypothetical one, but I consider it a likely one. The axi
> bus driver currently registers each detected core as a device in the linux
> device tree. My statement is that this implies loose or no coupling
> between those cores, which is not true. One (or two) exceptions have
> already been identified. I would expect your last line to read: ...to the
> system, those cores should not be represented as devices.
The important question is what is most practical here. If most of the
cores of this type are standalone devices, it's probably best to represent
all of them as separate devices, and find ways to deal with the few logical
devices that are spread across multiple cores.
It it's the exception and you typically have a significant number of IP
blocks that need to be combined to make a single logical device, I would
recommend not representing each of them as a struct device.
We really need to figure out first what the requirements are given the
hardware you want to support with this.
Arnd
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-04-20 7:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-04-14 11:28 Could I (ab)use bus (struct bus_type) for virtual Broadcom bus? Rafał Miłecki
2011-04-14 11:43 ` George Kashperko
2011-04-14 12:04 ` Rafał Miłecki
2011-04-14 12:34 ` Hauke Mehrtens
2011-04-14 13:07 ` Rafał Miłecki
2011-04-14 13:15 ` George Kashperko
2011-04-14 13:45 ` Rafał Miłecki
2011-04-15 18:36 ` George Kashperko
2011-04-15 19:21 ` Rafał Miłecki
2011-04-15 19:42 ` George Kashperko
2011-04-15 19:52 ` Rafał Miłecki
2011-04-15 19:56 ` Peter Stuge
2011-04-16 14:00 ` Rafał Miłecki
2011-04-16 14:13 ` Jonas Gorski
2011-04-15 19:50 ` George Kashperko
2011-04-17 17:38 ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-04-18 12:19 ` Rafał Miłecki
2011-04-18 14:19 ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-04-18 14:31 ` Rafał Miłecki
2011-04-18 15:35 ` George Kashperko
2011-04-18 15:53 ` Rafał Miłecki
2011-04-18 16:48 ` George Kashperko
2011-04-19 13:46 ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-04-19 13:58 ` Arend van Spriel
2011-04-19 14:02 ` Greg KH
2011-04-20 6:39 ` Arend van Spriel
2011-04-20 6:44 ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-04-19 14:20 ` Rafał Miłecki
2011-04-19 14:35 ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-04-20 7:16 ` Arend van Spriel
2011-04-20 7:26 ` Arnd Bergmann [this message]
2011-04-20 7:57 ` Arend van Spriel
2011-04-20 7:29 ` Rafał Miłecki
2011-05-05 12:33 ` AXI driver status => previously: " Arend van Spriel
2011-05-05 12:48 ` Rafał Miłecki
2011-05-05 12:54 ` Arend van Spriel
2011-04-14 13:03 ` George Kashperko
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=201104200926.09110.arnd@arndb.de \
--to=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net \
--cc=andy@andybotting.com \
--cc=arend@broadcom.com \
--cc=b43-dev@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=george@znau.edu.ua \
--cc=greg@kroah.com \
--cc=hauke@hauke-m.de \
--cc=jonas.gorski@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rmk@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=zajec5@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).