From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932698AbcIPNWR (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Sep 2016 09:22:17 -0400 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:50190 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751397AbcIPNWI (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Sep 2016 09:22:08 -0400 Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 15:22:08 +0200 From: Greg KH To: Mark Brown Cc: Arnd Bergmann , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Johan Hovold , Rui Miguel Silva , Laurent Pinchart , Sandeep Patil , Matt Porter , John Stultz , Rob Herring , Viresh Kumar , Alex Elder , David Lin , "Bryan O'Donoghue" , Vaibhav Agarwal , Mark Greer Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Greybus driver subsystem for 4.9-rc1 Message-ID: <20160916132208.GA31091@kroah.com> References: <20160914100949.GA6179@kroah.com> <20160915144553.GA15697@sirena.org.uk> <20160916060519.GA17586@kroah.com> <20160916101807.GV27974@sirena.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160916101807.GV27974@sirena.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.0 (2016-08-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 11:18:07AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 08:05:19AM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 03:45:53PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > Sending a pull request for code that's never been seen upstream seems > > > completely premature. > > > Hey, how does code get upstream then? :) > > By having the actual code to the mailing list. Ugh, vger keeps blocking the patches, I'm going to try for a third time now... > > As for the drivers all living under drivers/greybus/ I understand, but > > we need the greybus core present first before we can get the drivers in. > > How about we do what happened with IIO, we take the greybus core code in > > drivers/greybus/ and put the drivers in staging, and then move them out > > of staging into the "real" portion of the kernel as they get reviewed > > and accepted? > > Yes, staging would be appropriate for unreviewed code. Sounds good. thanks, greg k-h