[REQUEST] DT patch not reviewed for 2 months+

[REQUEST] DT patch not reviewed for 2 months+

[Guennadi Liakhovetski]

Hi all,

On 10th of May I submitted 2 patches

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.devicetree/73577

of which 1 adds documentation for DT bindings for a dmaengine driver. The 
driver doesn't add any new bindings, only standard bindings are used and 
the respective generic document is referenced in the patch. This makes me 
think, that a review of that patch should really be a matter of a couple 
of minutes. Unfortunateky this still hasn't happened. If the patch had 
been reviewed promptly, it still could make it into 3.16. We're at 
3.16-rc4 in the meantime. Have I done anything wrong in the patch 
submission procedure? What do I have to do to get this patch reviewed soon 
to get it in 3.17?

Thanks
Guennadi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [REQUEST] DT patch not reviewed for 2 months+

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Sunday 13 July 2014 22:00:11 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> On 10th of May I submitted 2 patches
> 
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.devicetree/73577
> 
> of which 1 adds documentation for DT bindings for a dmaengine driver. The 
> driver doesn't add any new bindings, only standard bindings are used and 
> the respective generic document is referenced in the patch. This makes me 
> think, that a review of that patch should really be a matter of a couple 
> of minutes. Unfortunateky this still hasn't happened. If the patch had 
> been reviewed promptly, it still could make it into 3.16. We're at 
> 3.16-rc4 in the meantime. Have I done anything wrong in the patch 
> submission procedure? What do I have to do to get this patch reviewed soon 
> to get it in 3.17?

The fallback for device drivers is that if nobody finds the time to review
the binding, the subsystem maintainer can just take it anyway.

I hadn't seen this driver so far, but looked at it now. The binding looks
good to me, so feel free to resend it with

Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd-r2nGTMty4D4@public.gmane.org>

The driver also looks good, but there is one part that can now be
done more efficiently:

+	dma_cap_zero(mask);
+	dma_cap_set(DMA_SLAVE, mask);
+
+	dchan = dma_request_channel(mask, nbpf_dma_filter, ofdma->of_node);
+	if (!dchan)
+		return NULL;


Here you can just call dma_get_any_slave_channel() and remove the filter
function. The way you do it is also correct, but we're trying to get
away from that, as it just adds pointless overhead.

	Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [REQUEST] DT patch not reviewed for 2 months+

[Guennadi Liakhovetski]

Hi Arnd,

Thanks for the review!

On Mon, 14 Jul 2014, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

> On Sunday 13 July 2014 22:00:11 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > On 10th of May I submitted 2 patches
> > 
> > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.devicetree/73577
> > 
> > of which 1 adds documentation for DT bindings for a dmaengine driver. The 
> > driver doesn't add any new bindings, only standard bindings are used and 
> > the respective generic document is referenced in the patch. This makes me 
> > think, that a review of that patch should really be a matter of a couple 
> > of minutes. Unfortunateky this still hasn't happened. If the patch had 
> > been reviewed promptly, it still could make it into 3.16. We're at 
> > 3.16-rc4 in the meantime. Have I done anything wrong in the patch 
> > submission procedure? What do I have to do to get this patch reviewed soon 
> > to get it in 3.17?
> 
> The fallback for device drivers is that if nobody finds the time to review
> the binding, the subsystem maintainer can just take it anyway.
> 
> I hadn't seen this driver so far, but looked at it now. The binding looks
> good to me, so feel free to resend it with
> 
> Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd-r2nGTMty4D4@public.gmane.org>
> 
> The driver also looks good, but there is one part that can now be
> done more efficiently:
> 
> +	dma_cap_zero(mask);
> +	dma_cap_set(DMA_SLAVE, mask);
> +
> +	dchan = dma_request_channel(mask, nbpf_dma_filter, ofdma->of_node);
> +	if (!dchan)
> +		return NULL;
> 
> 
> Here you can just call dma_get_any_slave_channel() and remove the filter
> function. The way you do it is also correct, but we're trying to get
> away from that, as it just adds pointless overhead.

Ok, I'll have a look at it and make sure to send a rebased update asap 
(that is hopefully next weekend...)!

Thanks
Guennadi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html