Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 5/5] net: mscc: ocelot: expose ocelot wm functions

[Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>]

On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 07:26:52AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 12:11:22 +0000 Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 11:48:52AM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > Thank you for highlighting this.
> > >
> > > Vladimir told me recently over the phylink get_interfaces vs get_caps
> > > change for DSA, and I quote:
> > >
> > >   David who applied your patch can correct me, but my understanding from
> > >   the little time I've spent on netdev is that dead code isn't a candidate
> > >   for getting accepted into the tree, even more so in the last few days
> > >   before the merge window, from where it got into v5.16-rc1.
> > >   ...
> > >   So yes, I take issue with that as a matter of principle, I very much
> > >   expect that a kernel developer of your experience does not set a
> > >   precedent and a pretext for people who submit various shady stuff to the
> > >   kernel just to make their downstream life easier.
> > >
> > > This sounds very much like double-standards, especially as Vladimir
> > > reviewed this.
> > >
> > > I'm not going to be spiteful NAK these patches, because we all need to
> > > get along with each other. I realise that it is sometimes useful to get
> > > code merged that facilitates or aids further development - provided
> > > that development is submitted in a timely manner.
> >
> > I'm not taking this as a spiteful comment either, it is a very fair point.
> > Colin had previously submitted this as part of a 23-patch series and it
> > was me who suggested that this change could go in as part of preparation
> > work right away:
> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/cover/20211116062328.1949151-1-colin.foster@in-advantage.com/#24596529
> > I didn't realize that in doing so with this particular change, we would
> > end up having some symbols exported by the ocelot switch lib that aren't
> > yet in use by other drivers. So yes, this would have to go in at the
> > same time as the driver submission itself.
>
> I don't know the dependencies here (there are also pinctrl patches
> in the linked series) so I'll defer to you, if there is a reason to
> merge the unused symbols it needs to be spelled out, otherwise let's
> drop the last patch for now.

I don't think there's any problem with dropping the last patch for now,
as that's the safer thing to do (Colin?), but just let us know whether
you prefer Colin to resend a 4-patch series, or you can pick this series
up without the last one.