Re: [PATCH 03/22] keembay-ipc: Add Keem Bay IPC module

[mark gross <mgross@linux.intel.com>]

On Sat, Dec 05, 2020 at 04:37:25PM +0000, Gross, Mark wrote:
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> > Sent: Saturday, December 5, 2020 12:40 AM
> > To: mark gross <mgross@linux.intel.com>
> > Cc: markgross@kernel.org; arnd@arndb.de; bp@suse.de;
> > damien.lemoal@wdc.com; dragan.cvetic@xilinx.com; corbet@lwn.net;
> > leonard.crestez@nxp.com; palmerdabbelt@google.com;
> > paul.walmsley@sifive.com; peng.fan@nxp.com; robh+dt@kernel.org;
> > shawnguo@kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Alessandrelli, Daniele
> > <daniele.alessandrelli@intel.com>; Iyer, Sundar <sundar.iyer@intel.com>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/22] keembay-ipc: Add Keem Bay IPC module
> > 
> > On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 07:35:17PM -0800, mark gross wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 08:01:18PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 09:42:00AM -0800, mark gross wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 07:16:20AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 02:34:52PM -0800, mgross@linux.intel.com wrote:
> > > > > > > --- a/MAINTAINERS
> > > > > > > +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> > > > > > > @@ -8955,6 +8955,14 @@ M:	Deepak Saxena <dsaxena@plexity.net>
> > > > > > >  S:	Maintained
> > > > > > >  F:	drivers/char/hw_random/ixp4xx-rng.c
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > +INTEL KEEM BAY IPC DRIVER
> > > > > > > +M:	Daniele Alessandrelli <daniele.alessandrelli@intel.com>
> > > > > > > +M:	Mark Gross <mgross@linux.intel.com>
> > > > > > > +S:	Maintained
> > > > > > > +F:	Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/intel/intel,keembay-
> > ipc.yaml
> > > > > > > +F:	drivers/soc/intel/keembay-ipc.c
> > > > > > > +F:	include/linux/soc/intel/keembay-ipc.h
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sad that Intel is not going to actually pay you all to do this
> > > > > > maintenance work for a brand new subsystem you are wanting to
> > > > > > add to the tree :(
> > > > > I thought adding my name to these maintainer items would help with
> > > > > continuity as the individual engineers tend to move on to other things over
> > time.
> > > > >
> > > > > While I'm paid for a number of things at intel this is one of
> > > > > them.  My role is as stable as I choose it to be at the point I'm
> > > > > at in my Intel career and the business unit I'm now part of.  We
> > > > > can leave my name off if that would be better.
> > > > >
> > > > > Even if I'm not a VPU IP domain expert like Daniele is I can still
> > > > > chase down the experts as needed after Daniele grows into other things over
> > time.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not objecting to your, or anyone else's name on this at all.
> > > > I'm just asking about Intel's support for this new codebase being added.
> > > > Having a new subsystem from a major company and not have someone
> > > > paid to actually maintain it seems really odd to me.
> > > >
> > > > That's all.  If that's Intel's stance, that's fine, just wanted to
> > > > clarify it is correct as I know some people at Intel have been
> > > > confused recently about just what the S: field means.
> > > I've been following up on whether the status field should be
> > > "Supported" or "Maintained" at this time.  For this current
> > > instantiation of the VPU enabling under review here I think Maintained
> > > most appropriate.  There are a good number of people who look after it.
> > >
> > > However; I have learned that the instantiations of the VPU after keem
> > > bay and its follow on SoC will include an evolution of this stack and
> > > between now and when those get close to landing that evolved version will
> > become "Supported".
> > >
> > > Given this, would it be more appropriate to put this stack into
> > > staging for a while?
> > 
> > drivers/staging/ is for code that for some reason is not good enough to be merged
> > to the "right" place in the kernel tree, and you need community help to get it
> > cleaned up because you can not do it yourself.
> > 
> > Is that the case here?  If not, then no, it should not go into drivers/staging/.
> That is not the case here.  Lets proceed as we are on this then.
>
I guess technically we have number of engineers paid to look after this version
of the VPU enabling.  I guess I'm over thinking things.  I'll change it S:
record from Maintained to Supported on the next version.

--mark