From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mauricio Faria de Oliveira Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] lpfc: support for CPU phys_id and core_id on PowerPC64 Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 09:51:56 -0300 Message-ID: <576A89EC.2010003@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <1464813809-22066-1-git-send-email-mauricfo@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <201606012043.u51KflcX004680@mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com> <20160621142902.GA10597@infradead.org> <57697C71.3060109@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:60567 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751652AbcFVMwT (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Jun 2016 08:52:19 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098399.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.11/8.16.0.11) with SMTP id u5MCn8WW092850 for ; Wed, 22 Jun 2016 08:52:08 -0400 Received: from e24smtp05.br.ibm.com (e24smtp05.br.ibm.com [32.104.18.26]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 23q1qnuhmd-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 22 Jun 2016 08:52:08 -0400 Received: from localhost by e24smtp05.br.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Wed, 22 Jun 2016 09:52:06 -0300 Received: from d24relay01.br.ibm.com (d24relay01.br.ibm.com [9.8.31.16]) by d24dlp02.br.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07E741DC006E for ; Wed, 22 Jun 2016 08:51:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d24av03.br.ibm.com (d24av03.br.ibm.com [9.8.31.95]) by d24relay01.br.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id u5MCq1Ci4755612 for ; Wed, 22 Jun 2016 09:52:01 -0300 Received: from d24av03.br.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d24av03.br.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id u5MCq0Yi014162 for ; Wed, 22 Jun 2016 09:52:01 -0300 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: "Martin K. Petersen" Cc: Christoph Hellwig , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, dick.kennedy@broadcom.com, james.smart@broadcom.com Hi Martin, On 06/21/2016 11:16 PM, Martin K. Petersen wrote: > Distros are free to carry a patch such as yours. That puts the burden on > them and not on upstream which is going in a different direction as > outlined by Christoph. > This is ultimately Broadcom's decision. It is their driver. Right, I understand. I submitted the patch in case they see value in having it upstream, as some distros discuss/ask about what's the status (or differences to) upstream. In some cases, a rationale like this one being documented on a mailing list is sufficient, provided the patch hasn't received other technical problems, for example. Thanks for the review/comments (Christoph too), -- Mauricio Faria de Oliveira IBM Linux Technology Center