On Thu 02-03-17 13:44:32, Laura Abbott wrote: > Hi, > > There's been some recent discussions[1] about Ion-like frameworks. There's > apparently interest in just keeping Ion since it works reasonablly well. > This series does what should be the final clean ups for it to possibly be > moved out of staging. > > This includes the following: > - Some general clean up and removal of features that never got a lot of use > as far as I can tell. > - Fixing up the caching. This is the series I proposed back in December[2] > but never heard any feedback on. It will certainly break existing > applications that rely on the implicit caching. I'd rather make an effort > to move to a model that isn't going directly against the establishement > though. > - Fixing up the platform support. The devicetree approach was never well > recieved by DT maintainers. The proposal here is to think of Ion less as > specifying requirements and more of a framework for exposing memory to > userspace. > - CMA allocations now happen without the need of a dummy device structure. > This fixes a bunch of the reasons why I attempted to add devicetree > support before. > > I've had problems getting feedback in the past so if I don't hear any major > objections I'm going to send out with the RFC dropped to be picked up. > The only reason there isn't a patch to come out of staging is to discuss any > other changes to the ABI people might want. Once this comes out of staging, > I really don't want to mess with the ABI. Could you recapitulate concerns preventing the code being merged normally rather than through the staging tree and how they were addressed? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
