linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] remoteproc: imx_rproc: Use device managed API to clean up the driver

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20250926082655.GE8204@nxa18884-linux.ap.freescale.net>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2025 16:26:55 +0800
From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....nxp.com>
To: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
Cc: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
	Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>, Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>,
	Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
	Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
	Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
	Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
	Hiago De Franco <hiago.franco@...adex.com>,
	linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org, imx@...ts.linux.dev,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Frank Li <Frank.Li@....com>, Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] remoteproc: imx_rproc: Use device managed API to
 clean up the driver

On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 09:25:28AM -0600, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
>On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 04:31:15AM +0800, Peng Fan wrote:
>
>It is fortunate that time was taken to understand the problem and fix it
>correctly.  Otherwise we'd still have a problem and more patches, possibly
>wrong as well, would have been needed.

Thanks for your caution and patience.

> 
>> >
>
>Most people tend to address one problem at a time, especially when subsequent
>patchsets have dependencies on the previous ones.  I'm not sure there is a need
>to document something like that.

I will not post dependent patches in future.

> 
>> I ask because I have other patches queued that are independent of the current
>> series, such as:
>>  - Reintroducing the table_sz clearing
>>  - Misc cleanup in remoteproc core
>
>I'm fine with those, as long as you address just one proble at any given time.

Thanks. So multiple patchsets/patches from one developer are allowed only if
each patchset/patch focus on a specific area/problem and no dependency.

It is clear to me.

>
>> 
>> I understand you may be busy and have limited bandwidth. Would it be feasible
>> to offload part of the review work to Bjorn? I rarely see Bjorn reviewing i.MX
>> patches. Alternatively, could we consider bringing in a third maintainer to
>> help accelerate the review process?
>>
>
>How fast do you want to go?  By and large, I reply to patchsets within a week,
>sometimes two when things are busy.  And when I can't meet those standards, I
>send out an email to the mailing list with the review order of the patches in
>my queue.  What else are you expecting?

I have been blocked once [1], this make me delay about two months to post out
i.MX95 (: For i.MX95 reviewing cycle, it is not that smooth. Anyway, I get
lesson learned and will follow the rules.

More and more, we(NXP) are taking upstream first. And I have requested Daniel
and Frank(both are very experienced Linux Kernel developer) to help review, so
hope we could move a bit smoothly.

For now,
To imx_rproc.c, the queue:
cleanup patchset2(at here now), cleanup patchset3, i.MX95 support, i.MX943 support

To imx_dsp_rproc.c, the queue:
Drop method, switch to use ops

To remoteproc_core.c, the queue:
Introduce back clearing table_sz.
Use scoped API

Nothing special to expect from you. I get the message that non-relevant
patchsets could be posted out for reviewing, and one or two weeks is good for
me.

Appreciate for your time.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-remoteproc/CANLsYkyEhhQA5KOsNveGSHUc3ZpckoL-CCHNZ0DZLMNYdNGzdQ@mail.gmail.com/

Thanks,
Peng