linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v5 0/1] drivers: mfd: Versatile Express SPC support

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

Message-ID: <20130717224729.GA20652@zurbaran>
Date:	Thu, 18 Jul 2013 00:47:29 +0200
From:	Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>
Cc:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Jon Medhurst <tixy@...aro.org>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@....com>,
	Sudeep KarkadaNagesha <Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@....com>,
	"devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org" 
	<devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@...aro.org>,
	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
	Achin Gupta <Achin.Gupta@....com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 0/1] drivers: mfd: Versatile Express SPC support

On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 06:22:46PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, Samuel Ortiz wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 02:29:02PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > At this point I don't really care about the name.  I just want the damn 
> > > thing merged upstream.  But after several iterations to either fit one 
> > > or another maintainers taste, each rework ends up in that maintainer 
> > > saying: "Now that you've reworked the code, I still don't like it since 
> > > this no longer fits in my subsystem tree."
> > FWIW, we asked Pawel to rework the sysreg and config parts of the
> > vexpress driver, make it an actual MFD driver, and spread the remaining
> > bits of the code into their respective subsystems. I don't think
> > this is an eccentric requirement.
> 
> I agree.  However the code that Lorenzo just posted can't be deprived 
> of any more sysreg/config parts.  
Yes, and I appreciate Lorenzo's effort here.


> Even the larger code you reviewed before is completely useless without 
> _additional_ drivers to go on top which are indeed waiting after this 
> code to be merged before they are submitted to their respective 
> subsystems.
Right. And merging this code in the right place is exactly what we're
doing here.

 
> And those additional drivers are way more interesting than this dumb 
> register access arbitrator.  
Yes, they're a lot smarter hence the requirement to have them live into
their respective subsystems where the right maintainer can provide
relevant reviews on them.

> > I don't mind merging Lorenzo's SPC driver as it is if he can explain to
> > me how it will eventually evolve into an actual MFD driver. If that's
> > not the case, I don't see how I could justify merging it through the
> > MFD tree.
> 
> Maybe the misunderstanding is about what actually is a MFD driver.
That's possible. I agree it should be documented properly.

> So I'll follow existing precedents in the kernel and move Lorenzo's code 
> to drivers/platform/vexpress/.
Thanks for that.

Cheers,
Samuel.

-- 
Intel Open Source Technology Centre
http://oss.intel.com/
--
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/