From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 378F8C2BB1D for ; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 22:56:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B944F214AF for ; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 22:56:21 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org B944F214AF Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=buserror.net Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 493s024tYZzDrhm for ; Sat, 18 Apr 2020 08:56:18 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=none (no SPF record) smtp.mailfrom=buserror.net (client-ip=165.227.176.147; helo=baldur.buserror.net; envelope-from=oss@buserror.net; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=buserror.net Received: from baldur.buserror.net (baldur.buserror.net [165.227.176.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 493ry13GmczDrRM for ; Sat, 18 Apr 2020 08:54:33 +1000 (AEST) Received: from [2601:449:8480:af0:12bf:48ff:fe84:c9a0] by baldur.buserror.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1jPZoE-0007S8-1q; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 17:50:06 -0500 Message-ID: From: Scott Wood To: =?UTF-8?Q?=E7=8E=8B=E6=96=87=E8=99=8E?= Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2020 17:50:04 -0500 In-Reply-To: References: Organization: Red Hat Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.28.5-0ubuntu0.18.04.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2601:449:8480:af0:12bf:48ff:fe84:c9a0 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: wenhu.wang@vivo.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, robh@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, christophe.leroy@c-s.fr, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, kernel@vivo.com X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: oss@buserror.net Subject: Re: [PATCH v4,4/4] drivers: uio: new driver for fsl_85xx_cache_sram X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Tue, 02 Aug 2016 21:08:31 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on baldur.buserror.net) X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Rob Herring , Greg KH , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel@vivo.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On Fri, 2020-04-17 at 22:16 +0800, 王文虎 wrote: > > On Fri, 2020-04-17 at 09:42 +0200, Greg KH wrote:>> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 > > at 11:58:29PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2020-04-17 at 10:31 +0800, 王文虎 wrote: > > > > > Sounds it is. And does the modification below fit well? > > > > > --- > > > > > -static const struct of_device_id uio_mpc85xx_l2ctlr_of_match[] = { > > > > > - { .compatible = "uio,mpc85xx-cache-sram", }, > > > > > - {}, > > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_OF > > > > > +static struct of_device_id uio_fsl_85xx_cache_sram_of_match[] = { > > > > > + { /* This is filled with module_parm */ }, > > > > > + { /* Sentinel */ }, > > > > > }; > > > > > +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, uio_fsl_85xx_cache_sram_of_match); > > > > > +module_param_string(of_id, > > > > > uio_fsl_85xx_cache_sram_of_match[0].compatible, > > > > > + sizeof(uio_fsl_85xx_cache_sram_of_match[ > > > > > 0].c > > > > > ompa > > > > > tible), 0); > > > > > +MODULE_PARM_DESC(of_id, "platform device id to be handled by cache- > > > > > sram- > > > > > uio"); > > > > > +#endif > > > > > > > > No. The point is that you wouldn't be configuring this with the > > > > device > > > > tree > > > > at all. > > > > > > Wait, why not? Don't force people to use module parameters, that is > > > crazy. DT describes the hardware involved, if someone wants to bind to > > > a specific range of memory, as described by DT, why can't they do so? > > > > Yes, DT describes the hardware, and as I've said a couple times already, > > this > > isn't hardware description. > > > > I'm not forcing people to use module parameters. That was a least-effort > > suggestion to avoid abusing the DT. I later said I'd try to come up with > > a > > patch that allocates regions dynamically (and most likely doesn't use UIO > > at > > all). > > > > > I can understand not liking the name "uio" in a dt tree, but there's no > > > reason that DT can not describe what a driver binds to here. > > > > The DT already describes this hardware, and there is already code that > > binds > > to it. This patch is trying to add a second node for it with > > configuration. > > > > Hi, Scott, Greg, > Seems like no balance here. How about I implement a driver of uio including > the l2ctrl and cache_sram related implementations? > And this way, the driver would be a hardware level driver and targeted for > uio. No, duplicating the code makes no sense whatsoever. Please just wait a bit and I'll send a patch to have the existing driver expose a dynamic allocation interface to userspace. -Scott