linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] SPI: DaVinci: Adding SPI driver for DaVinci

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87tyzwarwe.fsf@deeprootsystems.com>
Date:	Tue, 25 Aug 2009 17:29:21 +0300
From:	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...prootsystems.com>
To:	"Paulraj\, Sandeep" <s-paulraj@...com>
Cc:	Pablo Bitton <pablo.bitton@...il.com>,
	"davinci-linux-open-source\@linux.davincidsp.com" 
	<davinci-linux-open-source@...ux.davincidsp.com>,
	"linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] SPI: DaVinci: Adding SPI driver for DaVinci

"Paulraj, Sandeep" <s-paulraj@...com> writes:

> Kevin,
>
> Please see inline
>
>> 
>> > The patch has received no comments so far (here and on spi-general-
>> devel).
>> >
>> > Can someone test it on davinci's other that the DM6446 to see that
>> support for
>> > others has not broken?
>> >
>> > Kevin - Is there anything that keeps it from merging upstream to this
>> tree?
>> 
>> Hi Pablo,
>> 
>> Sorry for the delay, I've been travelling and not able to watch
>> DaVinci closely enough...
>> 
>> This driver should be merged via the SPI subsystem (maintained by
>> David Brownell), not the Davinci core code which I maintain.
>> 
>> That being said, in my view, here's why this driver is not ready for
>> upstream:
>> 
>> 1) The original driver from Sandeep that you based yours on was still
>>    going through revisions.  The last review comments[1] from David
>>    Brownell had not yet been addressed by Sandeep.  I hope that
>>    Sandeep will have a chance to address the existing review comments
>>    on his code, and then review yours.  However, you've made it
>>    rather difficult to do that because...
>
> [Sandeep] There were a set of comments from David Brownell(which was
> actually, thanks to him, in the from of a patch).  David did say
> that the SPI support in that form was ready for an initial merge. I
> tested it on DM355/Dm365 and Dm6467 and that driver(meant for the
> initial merge) is in our ARAGO tree.  Afcourse we all agreed that
> there are things to add in the SPI driver.  Also IIRC(and I am
> willing to be corrected) David did say that he would send it
> upstream when he got some time so I did not do it myself. The fact
> that he maintains the SPI subsystem had a part to play in my
> decision.

OK, I'll continue the original thread with some more questions on this
topic.

>> 
>> 2) You should have your patch apply on top of Sandeep's series, not
>>    just absorb it.  That way we can clearly see what you are adding
>>    and/or changing from Sandeeps original driver.  To make this part
>>    easier, I created a 'temp/spi' branch of davinci git where I've
>>    pushed the latest versions of the patches from Sandeep.  Any
>>    additions/updates/fixes you have should be posted as patches
>>    against that for easier discussion and review.
>> 
>> 3) As Sandeep did, you should keep the changes to the board/SoC code
>>    (arch/arm/mach-davinci/*) as a separate patch from the driver code
>>    (drivers/spi/*)
>> 
>> 4) this driver needs more testing
>
> [Sandeep] tested by TI test team on DM355 and DM365 and I have tested on DM6467.

Sandeep, your driver recieved sufficient testing.  The driver that I
was saying needs more changes was this one proposed by Pablo.

Kevin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/