From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757502Ab3BBCJs (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Feb 2013 21:09:48 -0500 Received: from mail-lb0-f177.google.com ([209.85.217.177]:58309 "EHLO mail-lb0-f177.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757296Ab3BBCJq (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Feb 2013 21:09:46 -0500 Message-ID: <510C7554.3060800@mvista.com> Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2013 06:09:24 +0400 From: Sergei Shtylyov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Russell King - ARM Linux CC: Felipe Balbi , Matt Porter , Linux DaVinci Kernel List , Chris Ball , "Cousson, Benoit" , Arnd Bergmann , Linux Documentation List , Tony Lindgren , Devicetree Discuss , Mark Brown , Linux MMC List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Rob Herring , Grant Likely , Vinod Koul , Rob Landley , Dan Williams , Linux SPI Devel List , Linux OMAP List , Linux ARM Kernel List Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 01/10] ARM: davinci: move private EDMA API to arm/common References: <1359742975-10421-1-git-send-email-mporter@ti.com> <1359742975-10421-2-git-send-email-mporter@ti.com> <5022f635a527470dbd0be932063e9cd2@DFLE72.ent.ti.com> <20130201184915.GP2244@beef> <510C1D0E.6030401@mvista.com> <20130201185820.GE29898@arwen.pp.htv.fi> <510C2A47.1090607@mvista.com> <20130201205600.GA31762@arwen.pp.htv.fi> <20130201213003.GW2637@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <510C58DF.3010103@mvista.com> <20130202004455.GX2637@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20130202004455.GX2637@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello. On 02-02-2013 4:44, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: >>>> On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 11:49:11PM +0300, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: >>>>>> good point, do you wanna send some patches ? >>>>> I have already sent them countless times and even stuck CPPI 4.1 support (in >>>>> arch/arm/common/cppi41.c) in Russell's patch system. TI requested to remove the >>>>> patch. :-( >>>> sticking into arch/arm/common/ wasn't a nice move. But then again, so >>>> wasn't asking for the patch to be removed :-s >>> Err, patches don't get removed, they get moved to 'discarded'. >> Any chance to bring it back to life? :-) >> Although... drivers/usb/musb/cppi41.c would need to be somewhat >> reworked for at least AM35x and I don't have time. But that may change, >> of course. > Right, I've just looked back at the various meeting minutes from December > 2010 when the CPPI stuff was discussed. Yes, I archive these things and > all email discussions for referencing in cases like this. Thanks. > Unfortunately, they do not contain any useful information other than the > topic having been brought up. At that point, the CPPI stuff was in > mach-davinci, and I had suggested moving it into drivers/dma. I don't remember that, probably was out of the loop again. > The result of that was to say that it doesn't fit the DMA engine APIs. I remember this as a discussion happening post me sending the patch to the patch system and it being discarded... > So someone came up with the idea of putting it in arch/arm/common - which Probably was me. There was also idea of putting it into drivers/usb/musb/ -- which TI indeed followed in its Arago prject. I firmly denied that suggestion. > I frankly ignored by email (how long have we been saying "no drivers in > arch/arm" ?) But there *are* drivers there! And look at edma.c which is about to be moved there... Anyway, I haven't seen such warnings, probably was too late in the game. > Now, it would've been discussed in that meeting, but unfortunately no > record exists of that. What does follow that meeting is a discussion > trail. From what I can see there, but it looks to me like the decision > was taken to move it to the DMA engine API, and work on sorting out MUSB > was going to commence. > The last email in that says "I'll get to that soon"... and that is also > the final email I have on this topic. I guess if nothing has happened... > Shrug, that's someone elses problem. Well, as usual... :-( > Anyway, the answer for putting it in arch/arm/common hasn't changed, > and really, where we are now, post Linus having a moan about the size > of arch/arm, that answer is even more concrete in the negative. It's > 54K of code which should not be under arch/arm at all. > Anyway, if you need to look at the patch, it's 6305/1. Typing into the > summary search box 'cppi' found it in one go. Thanks, I remember this variant was under arch/arm/common/. Now however, I see what happened to that variant in somewhat different light. Looks like it was entirely your decision to discard the patch, without TI's request... WBR, Sergei