Date:	Thu, 22 May 2014 12:27:12 +0100
From:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To:	Barry Song <baohua@...nel.org>
Cc:	Matt Porter <mporter@...aro.org>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>, Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>,
	Linux ARM Kernel List <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: l2c: prima2: only call l2x0_of_init() on matching
	nodes

On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 07:04:14PM +0800, Barry Song wrote:
> 2014-05-22 17:33 GMT+08:00 Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>:
> > On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 11:40:33PM +0800, Barry Song wrote:
> >> 2014-04-29 23:14 GMT+08:00 Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>:
> >> > On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 11:05:06PM +0800, Barry Song wrote:
> >> >> 2014-04-28 22:52 GMT+08:00 Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>:
> >> >> > On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 10:37:09AM -0400, Matt Porter wrote:
> >> >> >> The "fix" is tested against bcm281xx and bcm21664 as that is what the
> >> >> >> l2c cleanup breaks in -next. As mentioned, I don't have the sirfsoc h/w
> >> >> >> so this first attempt at a fix also breaks their platform. It can be
> >> >> >> addressed by adding those platform specific compatibles back to the dts,
> >> >> >> of course.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I'd much prefer that the sirfsoc folks fix this...it's going to break
> >> >> >> other platforms in a multi v7 build.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Well, it's about time we got rid of this from platform specific code
> >> >> > anyway, taking it away from platform maintainers to mess around with.
> >> >> > So that's what I'm doing.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > It's worth noting that if you build a single zImage with exynos also
> >> >> > enabled, then you also end up with an unconditional call from that
> >> >> > code to l2x0_of_init() with it's own magic numbers - and that applies
> >> >> > before my changes.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > So let's fix this properly and yank this crap from platform maintainers
> >> >> > fingers.
> >> >>
> >> >> i mentioned dropping specific dts compatible prop will break non-csr
> >> >> platforms in the mail thread "ARM: prima2: remove L2 cache size
> >> >> override" and i said i was going to send v2. you said you need it
> >> >> before rc6. now it has been sent, but i am sorry it is not against
> >> >> next-20140424.
> >> >
> >> > FFS.  IT HASN'T BEEN SENT.  All that I did was drop it into linux-next
> >> > so that more people would get off their fat backsides and test this
> >> > fscking patch set - something which hasn't happened because no one
> >> > pays attention to emails sent to mailing lists.
> >>
> >> so your point is people don't pay attention to your mails? or you are
> >> ignored? i think that is 100% not real. i think your opinions and
> >> mails are always respected as you are the chief arm linux expert.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > I also told you that this was what I was going to do.  But... is it
> >> > really on to hold up such a large patch set which impacts virtually
> >> > everyone because _you_ don't have time to sort out your small special
> >> > requirements - no it is not, that's just fscking selfish.
> >> >
> >> > Anyway, I've had it with dealing with platform maintainers, I've yanked
> >> > this patch set, and I'm no longer planning to do anything with it -
> >> > platform maintainers have destroyed my will to get any of this series
> >> > into the kernel.
> >>
> >> no, i am trying to follow your suggestion to make patch set merged and
> >> l2 codes cleaned.
> >> i have been trying to follow your will until now, and from the beginning.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > So, the L2 cache code is going to remain in its current state, and it's
> >> > going to rot because it's _FAR_ too much effort dealing with slow people
> >> > like yourselves, or people who want the series split up, or people who
> >> > whinge that there aren't any acks there (WELL GET OFF YOUR FAT BACKSIDES
> >> > AND SEND ME SOME IF YOU CARE ABOUT THIS - no, don't, I'm no longer pushing
> >> > this series.)
> >>
> >> people might be "selfish", but people might have some reasons to
> >> response slowly, like holiday or family issue.
> >> how about taking it easy? it doesn't prove you are not respected by
> >> platform maintainers.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > This is the last time I'm going to ever try cleaning up any core ARM code.
> >> > Core ARM maintanence is impossible in this environment with arm-soc split
> >> > from core ARM stuff, because core ARM stuff /always/ impacts on SoC
> >> > specific code.  You can't get away from that.
> >> >
> >> > My position in this community has been made impossible and obsolete by
> >> > Linaro.  I'm at the point of walking away from this crap.
> >>
> >> just fix the relationship and communication, that is good enough. you
> >> have done things so well, there is no reason to give up.
> >
> > So, just as I thought...
> >
> > -rc6 has now been released, and YOU have done NOTHING to resolve any of
> > the issues you have with this patch set - which is precisely on track
> > with how you have behaved towards this set of changes on the past - where
> > you promised imformation/patches and never delivered.
> >
> > Well, right now I'm just not going to *care* one bit about Prima2.  If
> > this patch set breaks it, tough.  You've had plenty of opportunity to
> > deal with this, but instead you've chosen to just whinge about it and
> > then do precisely nothing to assist.
> 
> i have no idea why you are saying this. if you checked the email, i
> have sent a patch in last month.
> 
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg327151.html
> 
> but i got no reply and you said you will not handle l2....

I said I won't deal with this patch set anymore because I got *thoroughly*
frustrated with you and the lack of cooperation from many of the SoC people.
It seems that the only way to get things done around here is to railroad
them into linux-next and wait for people to notice the changes.  That's
really not an acceptable way of doing development, but it's the *only*
one which gets people's attention.  Sending emails does not work, because
people ignore them.

Moreover, your patch is a total rewrite of several of my patches, and is
not an incremental set of changes.  Given that my patch set which was last
posted has the SoC changes done incrementally amongst the other changes,
this is just not an acceptable approach, so frankly the patch is useless
to me.

-- 
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: now at 9.7Mbps down 460kbps up... slowly
improving, and getting towards what was expected from it.
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists