[PATCH v4 01/10] staging: most: remove device from interface structure

[Christian.Gromm at microchip.com]

On Fri, 2020-01-24 at 10:09 +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you
> know the content is safe
> 
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 08:56:56AM +0000, 
> Christian.Gromm at microchip.com wrote:
> > On Thu, 2020-01-23 at 19:18 +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you
> > > know the content is safe
> > > 
> > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 04:38:17PM +0100, Christian Gromm wrote:
> > > > This patch makes the adapter drivers use their own device
> > > > structures
> > > > when registering a most interface with the core module.
> > > > With this the module that actually operates the physical device
> > > > is
> > > > the
> > > > owner of the device.
> > > 
> > > Ick, why?  The interface should be part of sysfs, right, and now
> > > it
> > > isn't?
> > 
> > It still is. What has changed is that the device that actually
> > represents the attached hardware is used (see probe function of
> > the USB adapter driver for instance).
> 
> Ah.  Ick.  odd...
> 
> > > Who handles the lifetime rules of these interfaces now?  Why
> > > remove this?
> > 
> > The struct device that is allocated when attaching a MOST device is
> > handling the lifetime and the struct most_interface is
> > representing this device in the kernel. Hence, registered with
> > sysfs.
> > 
> > This ensures that the device is present in the kernel until its
> > physical stature is being detached from the system.
> > The core driver is just the man in the middle that registers the
> > bus and itself as the driver and organizes the configfs, sysfs and
> > communication paths to user space.
> > 
> > > 
> > > Why isn't the interface dynamically created properly?  That
> > > should
> > > solve
> > > the lifetime rules here, right?
> > 
> > The interface is dynamically allocated. This happens inside the
> > USB, DIM2, I2C etc. drivers. The struct most_interface is part of
> > the container struct there.
> 
> Ok, I'll take the first 7 of these patches and see what the end
> result
> looks like after that, it will make reviewing the code easier...

Did you find some time for the review yet?

thanks,
Chris