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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/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 _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel