> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.boss...@linux.intel.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2020 8:18 AM
> To: Leon Romanovsky <l...@kernel.org>; Ertman, David M
> <david.m.ert...@intel.com>
> Cc: 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; j...@nvidia.com;
> gre...@linuxfoundation.org; k...@kernel.org; Williams, Dan J
> <dan.j.willi...@intel.com>; Saleem, Shiraz <shiraz.sal...@intel.com>;
> da...@davemloft.net; Patil, Kiran <kiran.pa...@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] Add ancillary bus support
>
> 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.
>
> [...]
>
> >> + const struct my_driver my_drv = {
> >> + .ancillary_drv = {
> >> + .driver = {
> >> + .name = "myancillarydrv",
> >
> > Why do we need to give control over driver name to the driver authors?
> > It can be problematic if author puts name that already exists.
>
> Good point. When I used the ancillary_devices for my own SoundWire test,
> the driver name didn't seem specifically meaningful but needed to be set
> to something, what mattered was the id_table. Just thinking aloud, maybe
> we can add prefixing with KMOD_BUILD, as we've done already to avoid
> collisions between device names?
>
> [...]
Since we have eliminated all IDA type things out of the bus infrastructure,
I like the idea of prefixing the driver name with KBUILD_MODNAME through
a macro front. Since a parent driver can register more than one ancillary
driver,
this allow the parent to have an internally meaningful name while still ensuring
its uniqueness.
-DaveE
