[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210723125900.GA279903@ojas>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 18:29:00 +0530
From: Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin98@...il.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: nsaenz@...nel.org, stefan.wahren@...e.com,
dan.carpenter@...cle.com, phil@...pberrypi.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] vchiq: Patch to separate platform and cdev code
On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 01:02:41PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 09:50:48PM +0530, Ojaswin Mujoo wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > This patchset adderesses the TODO item number 10 specified at:
> >
> > drivers/staging/vc04-services/interface/TODO
> >
> > For reference, the task is:
> >
> > 10) Reorganize file structure: Move char driver to it's own file and join
> > both platform files
> >
> > The cdev is defined alongside with the platform code in vchiq_arm.c. It
> > would be nice to completely decouple it from the actual core code. For
> > instance to be able to use bcm2835-audio without having /dev/vchiq created.
> > One could argue it's better for security reasons or general cleanliness. It
> > could even be interesting to create two different kernel modules, something
> > the likes of vchiq-core.ko and vchiq-dev.ko. This would also ease the
> > upstreaming process.
> >
> > A summary of the patches is as follows:
> >
> > - Patch 1: Move cdev init code into a function
> > - Patch 2: Shift some devlarations from vchiq_arm.c to vchiq_arm.h for
> > sharing
> > - Patch 3: Move vchiq cdev init code from vchiq_arm.c into vchiq_dev.c
> > - Patch 4: Decouple cdev code by defining a Kconfig entry to allow
> > optional compilation of it.
> > - Patch 5: Merge code in vchiq_2835_arm.c to vchiq_arm.c
> >
> > Changes since v3 [2]:
> >
> > * In Patch 5, replace forward declarations of some of the functions with
> > function definition
>
> You dropped the reviews of others, so now I need to wait for them again
> :(
>
Hello Greg,
Apologies for that, I was under the impression that a new version
needed a separate review :(
If its okay, I can alternately resubmit this (as v5?) with Stefan's
Reviewed-By tags on unchanged commits intact. Let me know if that's okay
or if its better to wait out.
Thank you!
Ojaswin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists