Re: [GIT PULL 5/9] intel_th: msu: Introduce buffer driver interface

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 07:33:58PM +0300, Alexander Shishkin wrote:
> Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> >> +	/*
> >> +	 * ->assign() called when buffer 'mode' is set to this driver
> >> +	 *   (aka mode_store())
> >> +	 * @device:	struct device * of the msc
> >> +	 * @mode:	allows the driver to set HW mode (see the enum above)
> >> +	 * Returns:	a pointer to a private structure associated with this
> >> +	 *		msc or NULL in case of error. This private structure
> >> +	 *		will then be passed into all other callbacks.
> >> +	 */
> >> +	void	*(*assign)(struct device *dev, int *mode);
> >> +	/* ->unassign():	some other mode is selected, clean up */
> >> +	void	(*unassign)(void *priv);
> >> +	/*
> >> +	 * ->alloc_window(): allocate memory for the window of a given
> >> +	 *		size
> >> +	 * @sgt:	pointer to sg_table, can be overridden by the buffer
> >> +	 *		driver, or kept intact
> >> +	 * Returns:	number of sg table entries <= number of pages;
> >> +	 *		0 is treated as an allocation failure.
> >> +	 */
> >> +	int	(*alloc_window)(void *priv, struct sg_table **sgt,
> >> +				size_t size);
> >> +	void	(*free_window)(void *priv, struct sg_table *sgt);
> >> +	/* ->activate():	trace has started */
> >> +	void	(*activate)(void *priv);
> >> +	/* ->deactivate():	trace is about to stop */
> >> +	void	(*deactivate)(void *priv);
> >> +	/*
> >> +	 * ->ready():	window @sgt is filled up to the last block OR
> >> +	 *		tracing is stopped by the user; this window contains
> >> +	 *		@bytes data. The window in question transitions into
> >> +	 *		the "LOCKED" state, indicating that it can't be used
> >> +	 *		by hardware. To clear this state and make the window
> >> +	 *		available to the hardware again, call
> >> +	 *		intel_th_msc_window_unlock().
> >> +	 */
> >> +	int	(*ready)(void *priv, struct sg_table *sgt, size_t bytes);
> >> +};
> >
> > Why isn't this based off of 'struct driver'?
> 
> It's not a real driver, in a sense that there's no underlying
> device. None of the usual driver stuff applies.

Then do not call it a "driver", as in the kernel we have a very
well-defined and known definition of a driver.  Call it something else
please.  Yes, naming is hard, but don't try to overload onto an already
existing name.

> It's still a set of callbacks, though. Should this be an elaborate
> comment, should I replace the word "driver" with something else?

Yes.

> I'd really like to avoid shoehorning the whole 'struct device' +
> 'struct driver' here.

Why not?  If you have a driver, just make it a real one.  It not take
all that much boiler-plate code to do so and then you get all of the
things you will want in the end anyway (sysfs representation,
attributes, auto-loading of modules, etc.)

Try doing it "for real" and see what happens.

thanks,

greg k-h