> -----Original Message----- > From: Andy Shevchenko [mailto:andy.shevche...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2017 12:34 AM > To: Limonciello, Mario <mario_limoncie...@dell.com> > Cc: dvh...@infradead.org; LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>; Platform Driver > <platform-driver-...@vger.kernel.org>; Andy Lutomirski <l...@kernel.org>; > quasi...@google.com; Pali Rohár <pali.ro...@gmail.com>; Rafael J. Wysocki > <r...@rjwysocki.net>; mj...@google.com; Christoph Hellwig <h...@lst.de>; > Greg KH <g...@kroah.com> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 05/14] platform/x86: dell-wmi-descriptor: split WMI > descriptor into it's own driver > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 1:48 AM, Mario Limonciello > <mario.limoncie...@dell.com> wrote: > > All communication on individual GUIDs should occur in separate drivers. > > Allowing a driver to communicate with the bus to another GUID is just > > a hack that discourages drivers to adopt the bus model. > > > > The information found from the WMI descriptor driver is now exported > > for use by other drivers. > > > + priv = list_first_entry_or_null(&wmi_list, > > + struct descriptor_priv, > > + list); > > > + priv = list_first_entry_or_null(&wmi_list, > > + struct descriptor_priv, > > + list); > > static inline ...to_priv(...) > { > return list_first_entry_...(); > } > > > + list_add_tail(&priv->list, &wmi_list); > > > + list_del(&priv->list); > > Do these need locking?
Yeah this seems like a good idea. I'll add it in. > > > +bool dell_wmi_get_interface_version(u32 *version); > > +bool dell_wmi_get_size(u32 *size); > > This might need stubs when module is not selected (when functionality > is optional if it would be the case), otherwise all users should > select it explicitly. Per Darren's other threads I'm adjusting Kconfig to make sure this module is selected. It's realistically not optional when using these others.
