On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 08:42:59AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Fri 03-03-17 09:37:55, Laura Abbott wrote: > > On 03/03/2017 05:29 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > 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? > > > > > > > Sorry, I'm really not understanding your question here, can you > > clarify? > > There must have been a reason why this code ended up in the staging > tree, right? So my question is what those reasons were and how they were > handled in order to move the code from the staging subtree. No one gave a thing about android in upstream, so Greg KH just dumped it all into staging/android/. We've discussed ION a bunch of times, recorded anything we'd like to fix in staging/android/TODO, and Laura's patch series here addresses a big chunk of that. This is pretty much the same approach we (gpu folks) used to de-stage the syncpt stuff. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch
