On 31/08/2022 17:12, Tuma, Martin (Digiteq Automotive) wrote: > > >>> The Xilinx XDMA IP core is a complex device that is bound to PCIe and >>> also handles stuff like MSI/MSI-X interrupts of the PCIe card/FPGA. >>> The FPGA IP core is different from those that already have drivers in >>> dma/xilinx so a new dma device would be required anyway. >> >> Just because it is different does not mean it requires a new driver... > > Just because the HW is from Xilinx and has DMA in it's name does not mean > it can be merged with some other Xilinx DMA driver... In many cases it means because submitters are not willing to integrate but prefer to duplicate... > I suggest we stop this kind > of argumentation as it is pointless and we look at the facts. I was waiting for the facts - for the actual differences. > The XDMA IP core > really is very different from the other three Xilinx DMA engines which already have > a driver in linux. Additionally as you can see, there are three supported Xilinx > DMA engines and each of them has its own driver, so I see no reason for > breaking this "rule" and try to violently merge the XDMA driver with one of > the existing drivers (their maintainers would IMHO not be very happy...) There is no rule that you need new driver for every new IP block. It depends. Anyway, I raised the concerns. You will get them probably again from other people when you Cc proper addresses... > >> I don't understand your quoting style. You typed here my message instead >> of quoting. I recommend to use some standard mail clients so that emails >> are properly formatted. > > The story behind the weird quoting style is, I only have a web Outlook accesible > through Citrix, where even copy&paste does not work... This is how things are if > you work for the Volkswagen/Škoda corporate (Digiteq is a subsidiary of Škoda) > like I do. The official mail addresses and their infrastructure is simply unusable for > "serious" work. I even had to set up my own SMTP server in the Internet to actually > send the patches... I will switch to different email address the next time I send > the reworked patches and use some sane email client. There were two reasons for > using the broken mail infrastructure: Sorry to hear that. Usually the only viable solution is to keep discussions and submits with other (e.g. private and working) accounts/setups. Git works fine with it, only authorship of emails is different. Of course company might prohibit such approach... > > 1) By using the "official" company mail address I wanted to make clear that the driver > is developed by the company producing the HW. Author of email does not have to be the same as author of commit. > 2) I didn't know that the web Outlook is that bad and only designed for the "corporate" > style of replyies where you post your response on top of the previous message. > > TLDR - sorry for the "style", it will get better the next time I send the patches. Best regards, Krzysztof
