RE: [PATCH 1/2] staging:fsl-mc: Move DPIO from staging to drivers/soc/fsl

Leo Li
2018-07-18T18:10:32Z

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roy Pledge
> Sent: Monday, July 9, 2018 10:24 AM
> To: Laurentiu Tudor <laurentiu.tudor@nxp.com>;
> devel@driverdev.osuosl.org; linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org;
> gregkh@linuxfoundation.org; Leo Li <leoyang.li@nxp.com>
> Cc: Ioana Ciocoi Radulescu <ruxandra.radulescu@nxp.com>; Horia Geanta
> <horia.geanta@nxp.com>; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; arnd@arndb.de;
> catalin.marinas@arm.com; robin.murphy@arm.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] staging:fsl-mc: Move DPIO from staging to
> drivers/soc/fsl
>
> On 7/9/2018 6:37 AM, Laurentiu Tudor wrote:
> > Hi Roy,
> >
> > Couple of comments inline.
> >
> > On 05.07.2018 22:41, Roy Pledge wrote:
> >> Move the NXP DPIO (Datapath I/O Driver) out of the drivers/staging
> >> directory and into the drivers/soc/fsl directory.
> >>
> >> The DPIO driver enables access to Queue and Buffer Manager (QBMAN)
> >> hardware on NXP DPAA2 devices. This is a prerequisite to moving the
> >> DPAA2 Ethernet driver out of staging.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Roy Pledge <roy.pledge@nxp.com>
> >> ---
> >> MAINTAINERS | 2 +-
> >> drivers/crypto/caam/sg_sw_qm2.h | 2 +-
> >> drivers/crypto/caam/sg_sw_sec4.h | 2 +-
> >> drivers/soc/fsl/Kconfig | 10 ++++++++++
> >> drivers/soc/fsl/Makefile | 1 +
> >> drivers/{staging/fsl-mc/bus => soc/fsl}/dpio/Makefile | 0
> >> drivers/{staging/fsl-mc/bus => soc/fsl}/dpio/dpio-cmd.h | 0
> >> drivers/{staging/fsl-mc/bus => soc/fsl}/dpio/dpio-driver.c | 2 +-
> >> drivers/{staging/fsl-mc/bus => soc/fsl}/dpio/dpio-driver.txt | 0
> > Maybe this should be converted to .rst and go in the already existing
> > Documentation/networking/dpaa2/?
>
> I can look into converting this to RST but I'm not sure it belongs in the
> networking documentation folder since it will be used by other non
> networking drivers in the near future - compress/decompress for example.
> >
> >> drivers/{staging/fsl-mc/bus => soc/fsl}/dpio/dpio-service.c | 2 +-
> >> drivers/{staging/fsl-mc/bus => soc/fsl}/dpio/dpio.c | 0
> >> drivers/{staging/fsl-mc/bus => soc/fsl}/dpio/dpio.h | 0
> >> drivers/{staging/fsl-mc/bus => soc/fsl}/dpio/qbman-portal.c | 2 +-
> >> drivers/{staging/fsl-mc/bus => soc/fsl}/dpio/qbman-portal.h | 2 +-
> >> drivers/staging/fsl-dpaa2/ethernet/dpaa2-eth.h | 4 ++--
> >> drivers/staging/fsl-mc/bus/Kconfig | 9 ---------
> >> drivers/staging/fsl-mc/bus/Makefile | 2 --
> >> {drivers/staging/fsl-mc/include => include/soc/fsl}/dpaa2-fd.h | 0
> >> .../staging/fsl-mc/include => include/soc/fsl}/dpaa2-global.h | 0
> >> {drivers/staging/fsl-mc/include => include/soc/fsl}/dpaa2-io.h | 0
> >> 20 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> >> rename drivers/{staging/fsl-mc/bus => soc/fsl}/dpio/Makefile (100%)
> >> rename drivers/{staging/fsl-mc/bus => soc/fsl}/dpio/dpio-cmd.h (100%)
> >> rename drivers/{staging/fsl-mc/bus => soc/fsl}/dpio/dpio-driver.c (99%)
> >> rename drivers/{staging/fsl-mc/bus => soc/fsl}/dpio/dpio-driver.txt
> (100%)
> >> rename drivers/{staging/fsl-mc/bus => soc/fsl}/dpio/dpio-service.c (99%)
> >> rename drivers/{staging/fsl-mc/bus => soc/fsl}/dpio/dpio.c (100%)
> >> rename drivers/{staging/fsl-mc/bus => soc/fsl}/dpio/dpio.h (100%)
> >> rename drivers/{staging/fsl-mc/bus => soc/fsl}/dpio/qbman-portal.c
> (99%)
> >> rename drivers/{staging/fsl-mc/bus => soc/fsl}/dpio/qbman-portal.h
> (99%)
> >> rename {drivers/staging/fsl-mc/include => include/soc/fsl}/dpaa2-fd.h
> (100%)
> >> rename {drivers/staging/fsl-mc/include => include/soc/fsl}/dpaa2-
> global.h (100%)
> >> rename {drivers/staging/fsl-mc/include =>
> >> include/soc/fsl}/dpaa2-io.h (100%)
> > I received feedback in the past on mc-bus that a driver should limit
> > to only one public header and one private one. Would it make sense to
> > do the same for dpio too?
> Looking at this the dpaa-2global.h file should probably be integrated into the
> dpaa2-io.h file.
> The dpaaa2-fd.h can be used by devices that don't need to used DPIO - the
> definition of a frame descriptor isn't DPIO specific so I would argue it should
> be kept in a seperate file.

Hi Roy,

Will there be a re-spin of the patch soon so that we can probably catch the next merge window?

Regards,
Leo