Re: [char-misc-next 01/12 v3] mei: Rename mei_device to mei_host

[Samuel Ortiz]

Hi Greg, Arnd,

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:57:31AM +0100, Samuel Ortiz wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 03:32:44PM +0200, Tomas Winkler wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Samuel Ortiz <sameo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 11:09:00PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday 12 February 2013, gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Please let's find something that makes both hw and Linux happy
> > > > > > I still believe it makes sense to use mei_device for what we add to the MEI
> > > > > > bus. I'd be fine with mei_bus_device as well, but that would somehow look
> > > > > > a bit awkward. Greg, Arnd, any preference ?
> > > > >
> > > > > "mei_device" works the best for me.  Tomas, what you think of as a "MEI
> > > > > Device" really is a "MEI Controller", it bridges the difference between
> > > > > the PCI bus and your new MEI bus, so you will need to start thinking of
> > > > > these things a bit differently now that you have created your own little
> > > > > virtual bus.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I agree. mei_bus_device would also work as the name for the controller,
> > > > but not for the devices attached to it IMO.
> > > Tomas, I propose to switch to mei_controller instead of mei_host and keep the
> > > mei_device name for the devices we attach to the MEI bus.
> > > Does that work for you ?
> > >
> > 
> > The issue is that when we added our virtual bus we haven't gave up on
> > /dev/mei backed by mei_device
> > This is the interface, defined in linux/mei.h  which user space
> > applications use to connect to ME Clients within ME device.
> > Any ME client can be connected through this interface and we have few
> > legacy applications running for few years that use this interface so
> > we are not going to break them.
> > 
> > What we've done now is we added a virtual bus so also in-kernel
> > applications/subsystems can more naturally connect to the ME Clients,
> > this connection is client specific.  So the device that connect to the
> > bus is not an mei device but mei client device hence the name I've
> > proposed mei_cl_device.
> I don't have a strong opinion here, so that would be fine with me.
> Greg, Arnd, would mei_cl_device and mei_cl_driver be an acceptable compromise?
I'm re-opening this topic now that the merge window is closed: So would you
guys take mei_cl_device and mei_cl_driver as an acceptable solution or (as you
hinted earlier) are mei_device and mei_driver the only naming scheme that
you'd accept ?

Cheers,
Samuel. 

-- 
Intel Open Source Technology Centre
http://oss.intel.com/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/