> -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Williams <dan.j.willi...@intel.com> > Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2020 11:56 AM > To: Leon Romanovsky <l...@kernel.org> > Cc: Saleem, Shiraz <shiraz.sal...@intel.com>; Parav Pandit > <pa...@nvidia.com>; Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre- > louis.boss...@linux.intel.com>; Ertman, David M > <david.m.ert...@intel.com>; alsa-de...@alsa-project.org; > pa...@mellanox.com; ti...@suse.de; netdev@vger.kernel.org; > ranjani.sridha...@linux.intel.com; fred...@linux.intel.com; linux- > r...@vger.kernel.org; dledf...@redhat.com; broo...@kernel.org; Jason > Gunthorpe <j...@nvidia.com>; gre...@linuxfoundation.org; > k...@kernel.org; da...@davemloft.net; Patil, Kiran > <kiran.pa...@intel.com> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] Add ancillary bus support > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 6:37 AM Leon Romanovsky <l...@kernel.org> > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 01:09:55PM +0000, Saleem, Shiraz wrote: > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] Add ancillary bus support > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 12:21 PM Leon Romanovsky <l...@kernel.org> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 05:41:00PM +0000, Saleem, Shiraz wrote: > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] Add ancillary bus support > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 05:09:09PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Leon Romanovsky <l...@kernel.org> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2020 10:33 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 10:18:07AM -0500, Pierre-Louis Bossart > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the review Leon. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Add support for the Ancillary Bus, ancillary_device and > > > > ancillary_driver. > > > > > > > > > > > > It enables drivers to create an ancillary_device and > > > > > > > > > > > > bind an ancillary_driver to it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was under impression that this name is going to be > changed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's part of the opens stated in the cover letter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ok, so what are the variants? > > > > > > > > > system bus (sysbus), sbsystem bus (subbus), crossbus ? > > > > > > > > Since the intended use of this bus is to > > > > > > > > (a) create sub devices that represent 'functional separation' > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > (b) second use case for subfunctions from a pci device, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I proposed below names in v1 of this patchset. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (a) subdev_bus > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It sounds good, just can we avoid "_" in the name and call it > subdev? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is wrong with naming the bus 'ancillary bus'? I feel it's a > > > > > > fitting > name. > > > > > > An ancillary software bus for ancillary devices carved off a parent > device > > > > registered on a primary bus. > > > > > > > > > > Greg summarized it very well, every internal conversation about this > > > > > patch with my colleagues (non-english speakers) starts with the > question: > > > > > "What does ancillary mean?" > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/alsa- > devel/20201001071403.gc31...@kroah.com/ > > > > > > > > > > "For non-native english speakers this is going to be rough, given that > > > > > I as a native english speaker had to go look up the word in a > > > > > dictionary to fully understand what you are trying to do with that > > > > > name." > > > > > > > > I suggested "auxiliary" in another splintered thread on this question. > > > > In terms of what the kernel is already using: > > > > > > > > $ git grep auxiliary | wc -l > > > > 507 > > > > $ git grep ancillary | wc -l > > > > 153 > > > > > > > > Empirically, "auxiliary" is more common and closely matches the > intended function > > > > of these devices relative to their parent device. > > > > > > auxiliary bus is a befitting name as well. > > > > Let's share all options and decide later. > > I don't want to find us bikeshedding about it. > > Too late we are deep into bikeshedding at this point... it continued > over here [1] for a bit, but let's try to bring the discussion back to > this thread. > > [1]: http://lore.kernel.org/r/10048d4d-038c-c2b7-2ed7- > fd4ca87d1...@linux.intel.com
Out of all of the suggestions put forward so far that do not have real objections to them ... I would put my vote behind aux - short, simple, meaningful -DaveE
