stmmac driver...

stmmac driver...

[David Miller]

Giuseppe and Alexandre,

There are a lot of patches and discussions happening around the stammc
driver lately and both of you are listed as the maintainers.

I really need prompt and conclusive reviews of these patch submissions
from you, and participation in all discussions about the driver.

Otherwise I have only three things I can do: 1) let the patches rot in
patchwork for days 2) trust that the patches are sane and fit your
desires and goals and just apply them or 3) reject them since they
aren't being reviewed properly.

Thanks in advance.

Re: stmmac driver...

[Alexandre Torgue]

Hi David,

On 12/07/2016 07:06 PM, David Miller wrote:
>
> Giuseppe and Alexandre,
>
> There are a lot of patches and discussions happening around the stammc
> driver lately and both of you are listed as the maintainers.
>
> I really need prompt and conclusive reviews of these patch submissions
> from you, and participation in all discussions about the driver.
>
> Otherwise I have only three things I can do: 1) let the patches rot in
> patchwork for days 2) trust that the patches are sane and fit your
> desires and goals and just apply them or 3) reject them since they
> aren't being reviewed properly.

Sorry for the delay. I reviewed Niklas series this morning. I'm testing
"net: ethernet: stmmac: remove private tx queue lock".

Maybe I forget some series. Do you have others in mind ?

Regards
Alex
>
> Thanks in advance.
>

Re: stmmac driver...

[David Miller]

From: Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@st.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 14:55:04 +0100

> Maybe I forget some series. Do you have others in mind ?

Please see the thread titled:

"net: ethernet: Initial driver for Synopsys DWC XLGMAC"

which seems to be discussing consolidation of various drivers
for the same IP core, of which stmmac is one.

I personally am against any change of the driver name and
things like this, and wish the people doing that work would
simply contribute to making whatever changes they need directly
to the stmmac driver.

You really need to voice your opinion when major changes are being
proposed for the driver you maintain.

Re: stmmac driver...

[Alexandre Torgue]

On 12/08/2016 04:25 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@st.com>
> Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 14:55:04 +0100
>
>> Maybe I forget some series. Do you have others in mind ?
>
> Please see the thread titled:
>
> "net: ethernet: Initial driver for Synopsys DWC XLGMAC"
>
> which seems to be discussing consolidation of various drivers
> for the same IP core, of which stmmac is one.
>
> I personally am against any change of the driver name and
> things like this, and wish the people doing that work would
> simply contribute to making whatever changes they need directly
> to the stmmac driver.
>
> You really need to voice your opinion when major changes are being
> proposed for the driver you maintain.

For sure I agree. I miss this one as it doesn't modify (yet) stmmac 
driver. I gonna respond to the thread;

Regards
Alex

>

Re: stmmac driver...

[Jie Deng]

On 2016/12/8 23:25, David Miller wrote:
> From: Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@st.com>
> Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 14:55:04 +0100
>
>> Maybe I forget some series. Do you have others in mind ?
> Please see the thread titled:
>
> "net: ethernet: Initial driver for Synopsys DWC XLGMAC"
>
> which seems to be discussing consolidation of various drivers
> for the same IP core, of which stmmac is one.
>
> I personally am against any change of the driver name and
> things like this, and wish the people doing that work would
> simply contribute to making whatever changes they need directly
> to the stmmac driver.
>
> You really need to voice your opinion when major changes are being
> proposed for the driver you maintain.
>
Hi David and Alex,

XLGMAC is not a version of GMAC. Synopsys has several IPs and each IP has
several versions.

GMAC(QoS): 3.5, 3.7, 4.0, 4.10, 4.20...
XGMAC: 1.00, 1.10, 1.20, 2.00, 2.10, 2.11...
XLGMAC (Synopsys DesignWare Core Enterprise Ethernet): this is a new IP.

Regards,
Jie

Re: stmmac driver...

[Niklas Cassel]

Hello Jie Deng


In your cover letter you wrote

dwc-eth-xxx.x
  The DWC ethernet core layer (DWC ECL). This layer contains codes
can be shared by different DWC series ethernet cores

Does this mean that code in dwc-eth-xxx.x is common to all
the different Synopsys IPs, GMAC, XGMAC and XLGMAC ?


Regards,
Niklas

On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Jie Deng <Jie.Deng1@synopsys.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 2016/12/8 23:25, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@st.com>
>> Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 14:55:04 +0100
>>
>>> Maybe I forget some series. Do you have others in mind ?
>> Please see the thread titled:
>>
>> "net: ethernet: Initial driver for Synopsys DWC XLGMAC"
>>
>> which seems to be discussing consolidation of various drivers
>> for the same IP core, of which stmmac is one.
>>
>> I personally am against any change of the driver name and
>> things like this, and wish the people doing that work would
>> simply contribute to making whatever changes they need directly
>> to the stmmac driver.
>>
>> You really need to voice your opinion when major changes are being
>> proposed for the driver you maintain.
>>
> Hi David and Alex,
>
> XLGMAC is not a version of GMAC. Synopsys has several IPs and each IP has
> several versions.
>
> GMAC(QoS): 3.5, 3.7, 4.0, 4.10, 4.20...
> XGMAC: 1.00, 1.10, 1.20, 2.00, 2.10, 2.11...
> XLGMAC (Synopsys DesignWare Core Enterprise Ethernet): this is a new IP.
>
> Regards,
> Jie
>

Re: Re: stmmac driver...

[Niklas Cassel]

(resend with netdev included)

On 12/09/2016 05:29 PM, Jie Deng wrote:
>
> On 2016/12/9 18:50, Niklas Cassel wrote:
>> Hello Jie Deng
>>
>>
>> In your cover letter you wrote
>>
>> dwc-eth-xxx.x
>>   The DWC ethernet core layer (DWC ECL). This layer contains codes
>> can be shared by different DWC series ethernet cores
>>
>> Does this mean that code in dwc-eth-xxx.x is common to all
>> the different Synopsys IPs, GMAC, XGMAC and XLGMAC ?
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Niklas
> Yeah,  these codes may be reused in the future (due to HW similarities) but it
> would require a lot of refactoring. For the moment I will focus on the driver
> only for XLGMAC.

Ok, thank you for the clarification.

>
> XLGMAC is Synopsys "Enterprise MAC" controller (the product is already public):
> https://www.synopsys.com/dw/ipdir.php?ds=dwc_ether_enterprise_mac
>
> What do you think following strategy:
> - GMAC (QoS): discard drivers/net/ethernet/synopsys/dwc_eth_qos.c and keep
> development under drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/
> - XGMAC: keep development under drivers/net/ethernet/amd/xgbe/
> - XLGMAC: do development under drivers/net/ethernet/synopsys/

I don't have an opinion regarding XLGMAC.

For GMAC, I think it's a good idea that everybody focuses on the same driver (stmmac).
The same thing applies to XGMAC, amd-xgbe and sxgbe, however there I don't know
of any consolidation efforts.

>
> Thanks,
> Jie
>
>> On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Jie Deng <Jie.Deng1@synopsys.com> wrote:
>>> On 2016/12/8 23:25, David Miller wrote:
>>>> From: Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@st.com>
>>>> Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 14:55:04 +0100
>>>>
>>>>> Maybe I forget some series. Do you have others in mind ?
>>>> Please see the thread titled:
>>>>
>>>> "net: ethernet: Initial driver for Synopsys DWC XLGMAC"
>>>>
>>>> which seems to be discussing consolidation of various drivers
>>>> for the same IP core, of which stmmac is one.
>>>>
>>>> I personally am against any change of the driver name and
>>>> things like this, and wish the people doing that work would
>>>> simply contribute to making whatever changes they need directly
>>>> to the stmmac driver.
>>>>
>>>> You really need to voice your opinion when major changes are being
>>>> proposed for the driver you maintain.
>>>>
>>> Hi David and Alex,
>>>
>>> XLGMAC is not a version of GMAC. Synopsys has several IPs and each IP has
>>> several versions.
>>>
>>> GMAC(QoS): 3.5, 3.7, 4.0, 4.10, 4.20...
>>> XGMAC: 1.00, 1.10, 1.20, 2.00, 2.10, 2.11...
>>> XLGMAC (Synopsys DesignWare Core Enterprise Ethernet): this is a new IP.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Jie
>>>
>

Re: stmmac driver...

[Giuseppe CAVALLARO]

Hi David

On 12/7/2016 7:06 PM, David Miller wrote:
>
> Giuseppe and Alexandre,
>
> There are a lot of patches and discussions happening around the stammc
> driver lately and both of you are listed as the maintainers.
>
> I really need prompt and conclusive reviews of these patch submissions
> from you, and participation in all discussions about the driver.

yes we are trying to do the best.

> Otherwise I have only three things I can do: 1) let the patches rot in
> patchwork for days 2) trust that the patches are sane and fit your
> desires and goals and just apply them or 3) reject them since they
> aren't being reviewed properly.

at this stage, I think the best is: (3).

>
> Thanks in advance.
>
you are welcome


Peppe

Re: stmmac driver...

[Jie Deng]

Hi Peppe,

On 2016/12/12 22:17, Giuseppe CAVALLARO wrote:
> Hi David
>
> On 12/7/2016 7:06 PM, David Miller wrote:
>>
>> Giuseppe and Alexandre,
>>
>> There are a lot of patches and discussions happening around the stammc
>> driver lately and both of you are listed as the maintainers.
>>
>> I really need prompt and conclusive reviews of these patch submissions
>> from you, and participation in all discussions about the driver.
>
> yes we are trying to do the best.
>
>> Otherwise I have only three things I can do: 1) let the patches rot in
>> patchwork for days 2) trust that the patches are sane and fit your
>> desires and goals and just apply them or 3) reject them since they
>> aren't being reviewed properly.
>
> at this stage, I think the best is: (3).
I think the patches David mentioned also included XLGMAC. He sent this email
before I explained QoS and XLGMAC were different IPs. Do you mind we do XLGMAC
development under drivers/net/ethernet/synopsys/ ? I think we don't have
conflict since we will keep QoS development in stmmac.
>
>>
>> Thanks in advance.
>>
> you are welcome
>
>
> Peppe

Re: stmmac driver...

[Giuseppe CAVALLARO]

Hello Jie

On 12/14/2016 5:05 AM, Jie Deng wrote:
> Hi Peppe,
>
> On 2016/12/12 22:17, Giuseppe CAVALLARO wrote:
>> Hi David
>>
>> On 12/7/2016 7:06 PM, David Miller wrote:
>>>
>>> Giuseppe and Alexandre,
>>>
>>> There are a lot of patches and discussions happening around the stammc
>>> driver lately and both of you are listed as the maintainers.
>>>
>>> I really need prompt and conclusive reviews of these patch submissions
>>> from you, and participation in all discussions about the driver.
>>
>> yes we are trying to do the best.
>>
>>> Otherwise I have only three things I can do: 1) let the patches rot in
>>> patchwork for days 2) trust that the patches are sane and fit your
>>> desires and goals and just apply them or 3) reject them since they
>>> aren't being reviewed properly.
>>
>> at this stage, I think the best is: (3).
> I think the patches David mentioned also included XLGMAC. He sent this email
> before I explained QoS and XLGMAC were different IPs. Do you mind we do XLGMAC
> development under drivers/net/ethernet/synopsys/ ? I think we don't have
> conflict since we will keep QoS development in stmmac.

Great. Many thanks for the clarification :-)

Regards
Peppe

>>
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance.
>>>
>> you are welcome
>>
>>
>> Peppe
>
>

Re: stmmac driver...

[Jie Deng]

Hi David,

>>>> Giuseppe and Alexandre,
>>>>
>>>> There are a lot of patches and discussions happening around the stammc
>>>> driver lately and both of you are listed as the maintainers.
>>>>
>>>> I really need prompt and conclusive reviews of these patch submissions
>>>> from you, and participation in all discussions about the driver.
>>>
>>> yes we are trying to do the best.
>>>
>>>> Otherwise I have only three things I can do: 1) let the patches rot in
>>>> patchwork for days 2) trust that the patches are sane and fit your
>>>> desires and goals and just apply them or 3) reject them since they
>>>> aren't being reviewed properly.
>>>
>>> at this stage, I think the best is: (3).
>> I think the patches David mentioned also included XLGMAC. He sent this email
>> before I explained QoS and XLGMAC were different IPs. Do you mind we do XLGMAC
>> development under drivers/net/ethernet/synopsys/ ? I think we don't have
>> conflict since we will keep QoS development in stmmac.
>
> Great. Many thanks for the clarification :-)
>
> Regards
> Peppe
>
Do you agree that we do XLGMAC  development under drivers/net/ethernet/synopsys/
in the future ?
There is no conflict of interest since this is a new IP without driver. As you
see, there are several drivers for QoS (GMAC) and several drivers for XGMAC. We
want to avoid this situation for the new IP XLGMAC.

Regards,
Jie