[PATCH 0/4] staging: fsl-mc: dpio: add dpseci dependencies

Horia Geantă horia.geanta at nxp.com
Fri Sep 1 13:02:32 UTC 2017


On 9/1/2017 11:30 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 08:14:16AM +0000, Horia Geantă wrote:
>> On 8/31/2017 7:20 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 01:41:58PM +0300, Horia Geantă wrote:
>>>> This patch set adds support for functionalities needed by the upcoming
>>>> dpseci (Data Path SEC Interface) object device driver:
>>>> -Frame List Entries (FLEs)
>>>> -Congestion State Change Notifications (CSCNs)
>>>> -Order Preservation
>>>>
>>>> An RFC has been previously submitted:
>>>> https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org/msg27290.html
>>>> and crypto-specific (dpseci) patches have been ack-ed.
>>>>
>>>> I am resending the dpio dependencies separately (patches 1-4 in the RFC)
>>>> for inclusion in the staging tree.
>>>
>>> I'd rather see some users of the new code before I add the logic to the
>>> kernel.  We don't add code that isn't used...
>>>
>> The user is the DPAA2 crypto engine - RFC patches 5-9 (link above),
> 
> RFC patches mean that the submitter doesn't think they should be merged,
> so why should I?  :)
> 
>> I've split the RFC patch set, since:
>> -crypto-specific patches (5-9) received the ack from maintainer (Herbert Xu)
>> -DPIO dependencies (staging tree), i.e. patches 1-4, received no
>> attention -> hence sending them separately
>>
>> I am open to suggestions on how to go with a patch set that is touching
>> the staging and crypto trees.
> 
> If they have an ack already, and are dependant on these patches, then
> send them all at once.
> 
IIUC this would mean adding Herbert's ack to the crypto patches and
going with the whole patch set through the staging tree.
(Note that the crypto driver is targeting drivers/crypto, not
drivers/staging.)

> But again, I really want to see this code out of staging before adding
> new functionality, like this.  Please work on that first.
> 
That's exactly what I was asking in the RFC cover letter - guidance
whether adding this (IMHO small) dpio feature set is acceptable.

The alternative is, as you said, to wait for fsl-mc bus and dpio to be
moved out of staging.
Though this will incur non-negligible delay, which I was hoping to avoid...

> And yes, I have said I need to review the code to get it out of staging,
> but if you could do that as well, and give your ack/reviewed by to the
> patch that does the move, that would help...
> 
Ok, I'll try reviewing the patch(es).

Thanks,
Horia


More information about the devel mailing list