Messages in this thread | | | From | "Gross, Mark" <> | Subject | RE: [PATCH 03/22] keembay-ipc: Add Keem Bay IPC module | Date | Sat, 5 Dec 2020 16:37:25 +0000 |
| |
> -----Original Message----- > From: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> > Sent: Saturday, December 5, 2020 12:40 AM > To: mark gross <mgross@linux.intel.com> > Cc: markgross@kernel.org; arnd@arndb.de; bp@suse.de; > damien.lemoal@wdc.com; dragan.cvetic@xilinx.com; corbet@lwn.net; > leonard.crestez@nxp.com; palmerdabbelt@google.com; > paul.walmsley@sifive.com; peng.fan@nxp.com; robh+dt@kernel.org; > shawnguo@kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Alessandrelli, Daniele > <daniele.alessandrelli@intel.com>; Iyer, Sundar <sundar.iyer@intel.com> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/22] keembay-ipc: Add Keem Bay IPC module > > On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 07:35:17PM -0800, mark gross wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 08:01:18PM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 09:42:00AM -0800, mark gross wrote: > > > > On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 07:16:20AM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 02:34:52PM -0800, mgross@linux.intel.com wrote: > > > > > > --- a/MAINTAINERS > > > > > > +++ b/MAINTAINERS > > > > > > @@ -8955,6 +8955,14 @@ M: Deepak Saxena <dsaxena@plexity.net> > > > > > > S: Maintained > > > > > > F: drivers/char/hw_random/ixp4xx-rng.c > > > > > > > > > > > > +INTEL KEEM BAY IPC DRIVER > > > > > > +M: Daniele Alessandrelli <daniele.alessandrelli@intel.com> > > > > > > +M: Mark Gross <mgross@linux.intel.com> > > > > > > +S: Maintained > > > > > > +F: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/intel/intel,keembay- > ipc.yaml > > > > > > +F: drivers/soc/intel/keembay-ipc.c > > > > > > +F: include/linux/soc/intel/keembay-ipc.h > > > > > > > > > > Sad that Intel is not going to actually pay you all to do this > > > > > maintenance work for a brand new subsystem you are wanting to > > > > > add to the tree :( > > > > I thought adding my name to these maintainer items would help with > > > > continuity as the individual engineers tend to move on to other things over > time. > > > > > > > > While I'm paid for a number of things at intel this is one of > > > > them. My role is as stable as I choose it to be at the point I'm > > > > at in my Intel career and the business unit I'm now part of. We > > > > can leave my name off if that would be better. > > > > > > > > Even if I'm not a VPU IP domain expert like Daniele is I can still > > > > chase down the experts as needed after Daniele grows into other things over > time. > > > > > > I'm not objecting to your, or anyone else's name on this at all. > > > I'm just asking about Intel's support for this new codebase being added. > > > Having a new subsystem from a major company and not have someone > > > paid to actually maintain it seems really odd to me. > > > > > > That's all. If that's Intel's stance, that's fine, just wanted to > > > clarify it is correct as I know some people at Intel have been > > > confused recently about just what the S: field means. > > I've been following up on whether the status field should be > > "Supported" or "Maintained" at this time. For this current > > instantiation of the VPU enabling under review here I think Maintained > > most appropriate. There are a good number of people who look after it. > > > > However; I have learned that the instantiations of the VPU after keem > > bay and its follow on SoC will include an evolution of this stack and > > between now and when those get close to landing that evolved version will > become "Supported". > > > > Given this, would it be more appropriate to put this stack into > > staging for a while? > > drivers/staging/ is for code that for some reason is not good enough to be merged > to the "right" place in the kernel tree, and you need community help to get it > cleaned up because you can not do it yourself. > > Is that the case here? If not, then no, it should not go into drivers/staging/. That is not the case here. Lets proceed as we are on this then.
Thanks!
--mark
| |