From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Shevchenko Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 03/18] platform/x86: intel_scu_ipc: Introduce new SCU IPC API Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 13:55:41 +0200 Message-ID: <20200212115541.GT10400@smile.fi.intel.com> References: <20200211132603.73509-1-mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> <20200211132603.73509-4-mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> <20200211154841.GF10400@smile.fi.intel.com> <20200212114341.GW2667@lahna.fi.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200212114341.GW2667@lahna.fi.intel.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Mika Westerberg Cc: Darren Hart , Lee Jones , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , "H . Peter Anvin" , x86@kernel.org, Zha Qipeng , "David E . Box" , Guenter Roeck , Heikki Krogerus , Wim Van Sebroeck , platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: platform-driver-x86.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 01:43:41PM +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote: > On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 05:48:41PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 04:25:48PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote: > > > The current SCU IPC API has been operating on a single instance and > > > there has been no way to pin the providing module in place when the SCU > > > IPC is in use. > > > > > > This implements a new API that takes the SCU IPC instance as first > > > parameter (NULL means the single instance is being used). The SCU IPC > > > instance can be retrieved by calling new function > > > intel_scu_ipc_dev_get() that take care of pinning the providing module > > > in place as long as intel_scu_ipc_dev_put() is not called. > > > > > > The old API and constants that are still being used are left there to > > > support existing users that cannot be converted easily but they are put > > > to a separate header that is subject to be removed eventually. > > > Subsequent patches will convert most of the users over to the new API. > > > > I'm thinking now if it would be better to do this in two steps, i.e. split out > > legacy header first and then introduce new API? > > No problem doing that but I'm not sure what's the benefit over what is > done now? That's what I'm trying to figure out. Would it be? Maybe you can play with it locally and decide which one is better? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko