[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201008075048.GA254837@kroah.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2020 09:50:48 +0200
From: "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
"Ertman, David M" <david.m.ertman@...el.com>,
Parav Pandit <parav@...dia.com>,
Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>,
"alsa-devel@...a-project.org" <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
"parav@...lanox.com" <parav@...lanox.com>,
"tiwai@...e.de" <tiwai@...e.de>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"ranjani.sridharan@...ux.intel.com"
<ranjani.sridharan@...ux.intel.com>,
"fred.oh@...ux.intel.com" <fred.oh@...ux.intel.com>,
"linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
"dledford@...hat.com" <dledford@...hat.com>,
"broonie@...nel.org" <broonie@...nel.org>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
"kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
"Saleem, Shiraz" <shiraz.saleem@...el.com>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"Patil, Kiran" <kiran.patil@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] Add ancillary bus support
On Thu, Oct 08, 2020 at 12:38:00AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 12:01 AM Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org> wrote:
> [..]
> > All stated above is my opinion, it can be different from yours.
>
> Yes, but we need to converge to move this forward. Jason was involved
> in the current organization for registration, Greg was angling for
> this to be core functionality. I have use cases outside of RDMA and
> netdev. Parav was ok with the current organization. The SOF folks
> already have a proposed incorporation of it. The argument I am hearing
> is that "this registration api seems hard for driver writers" when we
> have several driver writers who have already taken a look and can make
> it work. If you want to follow on with a simpler wrappers for your use
> case, great, but I do not yet see anyone concurring with your opinion
> that the current organization is irretrievably broken or too obscure
> to use.
That's kind of because I tuned out of this thread a long time ago :)
I do agree with Leon that I think the current patch is not the correct
way to do this the easiest, but don't have a competing proposal to show
what I mean.
Yet.
Let's see what happens after 5.10-rc1 is out, it's too late now for any
of this for this next merge window so we can not worry about it for a
few weeks.
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists