Re: [PATCH v7 5/5] PCI: ACPI: Add a generic ACPI based host controller

[Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>]

On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 04:57:46PM +0530, Jayachandran Chandrashekaran Nair wrote:
> Lorenzo,
> 
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi
> <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 02:05:37PM +0530, Jayachandran Chandrashekaran Nair wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> pci_host_acpi.c is a generic implementation of these using a sysdata
> >> pointing to acpi_pci_root_info, and using a pointer to the pci_mmcfg_region
> >> to access ECAM area, Maybe I can rename this file to
> >> pci_acpi_host_generic.c to reflect this better.
> >
> > Maybe you should stop sending this series and work with Tomasz to
> > get this done, you are confusing everyone and I am really really
> > annoyed about this.
> >
> > Do you realize there is no point in having two patch series doing
> > the same thing and wasting everyone's review time ?
> >
> > Do you realize he started this work long before you and went through
> > several rounds of review already (I told you before but in case you
> > forgot) ?
> >
> > Tomasz posted a version yesterday, integrating comments following months
> > of review and testing and I think it is ready to get upstream:
> >
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/2/4/646
> >
> > Did you even consider reviewing his code or helping him instead of
> > churning out more patches doing the *SAME* thing ?
> 
> This is getting ridiculous, I had replied to your earlier mails on why
> my patchset is NOT doing the exact same thing. I had also explained
> why helping was not feasible.
> 
> The basic point again: I am trying to give a much simpler patchset
> to solve the same problem, I take it that you haven't reviewed my
> patchset before writing this mail. I would have appreciated
> a technical discussion rather than this pointless flamefest.
> 
> If you have reviewed it, you can see that there are just 5 patches
> instead of 23, and that overall it is a much simpler approach.

Ok, let's make it constructive. I think there is part of your
implementation that definitely makes sense (in particular the way you
cleaned-up the x86 MCFG unadulterated mess - patch 1), I will ask
Tomasz to integrate it, please work together on this.

I have nothing against your patchset, my point is that we can't keep
reviewing and testing two series (and I mean on ARM64 AND x86), please
understand my point, it is very time consuming to understand the
differences and make sure we don't break x86 in the process and I would
have to ask you to add all the code that I already reviewed in Tomasz's
set, I just do not want to do that.

I will reply to Tomasz, let's work together to have a single final
implementation please, I do not think I am asking too much here and
yes, by integrating part of your code I think Tomasz's patchset is
ready to go, obviously subject to Bjorn's review and opinion.

Thanks,
Lorenzo