[PATCH RFC 26/46] drivers/base: provide an infrastructure for componentised subsystems

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Friday, January 03, 2014 11:00:30 AM Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 02, 2014 at 07:10:55PM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 02, 2014 at 09:27:58PM +0000, Russell King wrote:
> > > Subsystems such as ALSA, DRM and others require a single card-level
> > > device structure to represent a subsystem.  However, firmware tends to
> > > describe the individual devices and the connections between them.
> > > 
> > > Therefore, we need a way to gather up the individual component devices
> > > together, and indicate when we have all the component devices.
> > > 
> > > We do this in DT by providing a "superdevice" node which specifies
> > > the components, eg:
> > > 
> > > 	imx-drm {
> > > 		compatible = "fsl,drm";
> > > 		crtcs = <&ipu1>;
> > > 		connectors = <&hdmi>;
> > > 	};
> > > 
> > > The superdevice is declared into the component support, along with the
> > > subcomponents.  The superdevice receives callbacks to locate the
> > > subcomponents, and identify when all components are present.  At this
> > > point, we bind the superdevice, which causes the appropriate subsystem
> > > to be initialised in the conventional way.
> > > 
> > > When any of the components or superdevice are removed from the system,
> > > we unbind the superdevice, thereby taking the subsystem down.
> > 
> > This sounds a lot like the "containers" code that Rafael just submitted
> > and I acked for 3.14.  Look at the lkml post:
> > 	Subject: [PATCH 2/2] ACPI / hotplug / driver core: Handle containers in a special way
> > 	Message-ID: <1991202.gilW172FBV at vostro.rjw.lan>
> > 
> > And see if that could possibly be used instead?
> 
> That's really disappointing bcause I've put a hell of a lot of work into
> this over the last few months, and if that's true it's all just been a
> total waste of my time.  Okay, lesson learned - don't spend any time
> trying to fix other people's problems after discussing them at
> kernel-summit.

Well, I didn't know that you were doing this work and my patch is to address
a specific problem that people are seeing in testing.  Also, the generic
containers part in it is very simple and it might be possible to integrate it
with your code, this way or another.  In fact, the only only thing I need from
containers at the moment is the online/offline functionality.

> In any case, the above message ID doesn't give me access to this containers
> code to look at to even evaluate whether it can be used for this - it just
> gives two patches for ACPI specific patches but not the core stuff.
> 
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-acpi/msg48101.html
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-acpi/msg48102.html
> 
> Please provide a better reference to the code you're referring to.

You can use the linux-next branch of the linux-pm.git tree at the moment or I
can set up a separate branch for that if that helps.  The two patches above
depend on some earlier material I've gueued up for 3.14, but it's mostly
ACPI hotplug code.

Thanks,
Rafael