From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jie Deng Subject: Re: stmmac driver... Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 12:05:50 +0800 Message-ID: <8d624fd3-8440-5b8a-ee8d-558a671eec60@synopsys.com> References: <20161207.130654.1484281922991494182.davem@davemloft.net> <35edb551-518e-f59f-7a9e-db108d8f42a7@st.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: To: Giuseppe CAVALLARO , David Miller , Return-path: Received: from us01smtprelay-2.synopsys.com ([198.182.47.9]:35516 "EHLO smtprelay.synopsys.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932109AbcLNEIN (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Dec 2016 23:08:13 -0500 In-Reply-To: <35edb551-518e-f59f-7a9e-db108d8f42a7@st.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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