Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround

[Pali RohÃr]

Hello,

On Wednesday 18 September 2013 19:18:17 Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Pali RohÃr <pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx> [130918 01:41]:
> > I'm not very happy. I sent this patch 6 months ago and only
> > now you commented that needs rework again. This patch is
> > needed because all thumb-2 userspace binaries crashing. I
> > want to have working support for Nokia N900 and not always
> > rebasing and changing patches. Also DT still not working on
> > N900 (file contains only small subset of devices as in
> > board files plus it is not in stable kernel) so I do not
> > want to switch to DT. I need something which is working and
> > not something new non-working. I belive that you and other
> > kernel guys do not remove all n900 board files until every
> > one line will be rewritten to DT and tested that everything
> > working. And from this and other conversation it looks for
> > me that you are going to do that. So please clarify what
> > you want to do (and when) with board-rx51-* files. Aftethat
> > I can decide what to do in future.
> 
> Sorry if there's been some going back and forth with the
> patches, I think pretty much everybody wants n900 support in
> the mainline.
> 
> It's obvious that we're moving everything to be devicetree
> only as discussed on the mailing lists over past few years.
> For most drivers it's already working, and we can still
> initialize platform data too for the legacy devices until
> they have bindings, so it should not be too intrusive except
> for the configuration changes to use appended DTB or a
> chained bootloader with DTB support.
> 
> > For now I see this situation something like: I wrote
> > patches, send them to ML and after half of year maintainer
> > politely rejected them becuase my patches not using new
> > uber cool technology with still not working and also was
> > not available half year ago. What happen if I find another
> > time to rework this patch and send it again in next 2 or 5
> > months?
> 
> Hmm hasn't there been pending comments until recently on your
> patches?
> 

Since 10.07.2013 I do not have any emails for patch 2/2. If I 
missed something from you, please resend me it.

> It seems that with the changes I suggested your patches should
> work for both legacy booting and DT based booting, so maybe
> just try to update them over next few weeks, let's say by
> -rc3 rather than wait 2 to 5 months? :) No need to test them
> currently on the DT based booting if you don't have that set
> up, just move the code out of the board-*.c file.
> 

Ok, no problem. I will move code as you suggested.

> > Tony, if you did not have time for review this patch months
> > ago or you found it only today - no problem, I understand
> > it. But what I need to know is what will happen with
> > board-rx51-* files (and when?) You can see that DT does not
> > have definitions of all n900 hw parts (plus it is not in
> > last 3.11 kernel!) which means that DT is not usable for me
> > and other n900 people. This also means that I cannot
> > rewrite my patches for DT and test if they working.
> 
> I usually stop looking at new code around -rc4 and concentrate
> on fixes until -rc1 or so. So there can be easily one month
> delays on reviewing stuff depending on where we are with the
> current merge window or -rc cycle, sorry if that's annoying.
> 
> The .dts files will be separate from the kernel soonish, so
> that's not be a show stopper. Just like all the board specific
> .config files are separate from the kernel already. Too bad
> our .dts changes did not get merged for v3.12 because of
> conflicts with other branches, but hey, they should be
> independent from the kernel anyways.
> 
> The board files will be going away as soon as things are
> working with DT. We've been pretty much only applying fixes
> to them for quite some time now. For the timeline, the
> earliest we'll be able to remove the board-*.c files and
> platform data is for v3.13 assuming the PM dependencies get
> sorted out before that. Making omap3 DT only is going remove
> about 25k LOC, so that's a good reason for doing that.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Tony

Thanks for clarification.

-- 
Pali RohÃr
pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.