On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 09:49:27AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 11/08/2016 08:55 AM, Thierry Reding wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 05:42:33PM -0800, Olof Johansson wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 5:21 AM, Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 08:53:37AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Suresh Mangipudi <smangipudi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Add GPIO driver for T186 based platforms. > > > > > > Adds support for MAIN and AON GPIO's from T186. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Suresh Mangipudi <smangipudi@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > Stephen/Thierry/Alexandre: > > > > > Can I get your review on this Tegra thing? > > > > > > > > Can we hold off on this for a bit? I've got my own implementation of > > > > this in my Tegra186 tree because I thought nobody else was working on > > > > it. From a brief look they seem mostly similar but there are a couple > > > > of differences that I need to take a closer look at (and do some more > > > > intensive testing on). > > > > > > Be careful about discouraging other developers internally from > > > participating upstream, Thierry. > > > > That was certainly not my intention. I do welcome any contributions, > > internal or external. > > > > > Please don't become a bottleneck for your company's contributions. > > > Rewriting stuff on your own isn't a scalable model. > > > > Like I said, I didn't rewrite this, I merely wrote the GPIO driver > > because there wasn't one at the time and I wasn't aware of anyone else > > working on one. Waiting for a GPIO driver to emerge would've prevented > > me from making progress on other fronts. > > One issue here is that there are lots of patches destined for upstream in > your own personal tree, but they aren't actually upstream yet. I think > pushing more of your work into linux-next (and further upstream) faster > would help people out. linux-next and other "standard" repos should be > easily discoverable by anyway following any upstreaming HOWTOs, but those > HOWTOs aren't going to mention your personal trees, so patches there > effectively don't exist. Making the already extant work more discoverable > will help prevent people duplicating work. I had assumed that I had properly communicated what the canonical temporary location for Tegra186 patches would be, but you're right that it's probably easy to miss, and linux-next would be a more obvious target. > Related to this, I've been waiting rather a while for the Tegra186 DT > binding patches I sent to be applied. I'd love to see them go in ASAP even > if there's no kernel driver behind them. The bindings have been reviewed, > ack'd, and they're in use in U-Boot already. It's true, I've been promising this for weeks now. I'll get around to it within the week. Please do prod me in case I don't. I promise I won't get mad =) > A thought on Tegra186: For a older supported SoCs, we obviously don't want > to push changes upstream that aren't too well baked. However, for a new SoC > that doesn't work yet, I'm tend to prioritize getting as much early work > upstream as fast as possible (to try and unblock people working in other > areas) over getting those patches perfect first. Release early, release > often will help unblock people and parallelize work. Pipeline your own work > rather than batching it all up to release at once. I'm always hesitant to merge code that isn't functional or tested, but perhaps I'm being a little overzealous here, and I'm evidently not doing so great, so let me try to be more aggressive. > P.S. don't take this email too personally or anything; I'm not trying to be > complaining/critical or anything like that. It's just a few mild thoughts. No offense taken, thanks for being constructive about it. Thierry
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
