| Message ID | 1425369592.3146.14.camel@pengutronix.de |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
Hi Grant, Rob, Am Dienstag, den 03.03.2015, 08:59 +0100 schrieb Philipp Zabel: > Hi Grant, Rob, > > this series has been around for quite some time now, basically unchanged > except for adding fixes for new users of the API that keep appearing > over time in different subsystems. > > It would be really helpful to get this merged for v4.0. Could you still > make this happen? > > Alternatively, could I please get your ack to allow this tag to be > merged into the other subsystem trees for v4.1 so that patches that > depend on it don't have to wait for yet another merge window? The question still stands. It would be great to hear from you and maybe get this change in at least in time for v4.1. best regards Philipp
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 04:24:47PM +0100, Philipp Zabel wrote: > Hi Grant, Rob, > > Am Dienstag, den 03.03.2015, 08:59 +0100 schrieb Philipp Zabel: > > Hi Grant, Rob, > > > > this series has been around for quite some time now, basically unchanged > > except for adding fixes for new users of the API that keep appearing > > over time in different subsystems. > > > > It would be really helpful to get this merged for v4.0. Could you still > > make this happen? > > > > Alternatively, could I please get your ack to allow this tag to be > > merged into the other subsystem trees for v4.1 so that patches that > > depend on it don't have to wait for yet another merge window? > > The question still stands. It would be great to hear from you and maybe > get this change in at least in time for v4.1. Let's look at the history. 10-03-2015: This reminder 03-03-2015: Pull request (ignored from what can be seen) 01-03-2015: Request from Laurent about what's happening 27-02-2015: Reminder 23-02-2015: Re-base (and version 8) due to conflicts 11-02-2015: Reminder 22-01-2015: Pull request 23-12-2014: Version 7 During that time, there's not been one peep from Rob or Grant on this. At what point has there been enough pestering that it's sufficient to bypass an apparently uninterested maintainer, who can't be bothered to say yes or no to a set of patches? For such a key subsystem in the kernel, this is bad. If Grant isn't interested in performing a maintainer role, I'd be willing to pick up that function (which'll be ironic, because that's the kind of thing that Linaro's been doing to me over the last few years... picking stuff off my plate without any discussion or agreement with me first, leaving me with almost nothing to do. No, I'm not pissed at that... not much.) I guess if you were to submit patches to Andrew, Andrew may take them in this circumstance and eventually send them on to Linus. Andrew?
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 04:24:47PM +0100, Philipp Zabel wrote: >> Hi Grant, Rob, >> >> Am Dienstag, den 03.03.2015, 08:59 +0100 schrieb Philipp Zabel: >> > Hi Grant, Rob, >> > >> > this series has been around for quite some time now, basically unchanged >> > except for adding fixes for new users of the API that keep appearing >> > over time in different subsystems. >> > >> > It would be really helpful to get this merged for v4.0. Could you still >> > make this happen? >> > >> > Alternatively, could I please get your ack to allow this tag to be >> > merged into the other subsystem trees for v4.1 so that patches that >> > depend on it don't have to wait for yet another merge window? >> >> The question still stands. It would be great to hear from you and maybe >> get this change in at least in time for v4.1. > > Let's look at the history. > > 10-03-2015: This reminder > 03-03-2015: Pull request (ignored from what can be seen) > 01-03-2015: Request from Laurent about what's happening > 27-02-2015: Reminder > 23-02-2015: Re-base (and version 8) due to conflicts > 11-02-2015: Reminder > 22-01-2015: Pull request > 23-12-2014: Version 7 > > During that time, there's not been one peep from Rob or Grant on this. I've only been copied on this latest pull request and a version from March of last year which Grant nak'ed. This series did not go to devicetree list either. I'll take a look at the series. If there is an explanation of how Grant's nak was addressed that would speed up my review. I'm not applying for v4.0 though. Rob > At what point has there been enough pestering that it's sufficient to > bypass an apparently uninterested maintainer, who can't be bothered to > say yes or no to a set of patches? > > For such a key subsystem in the kernel, this is bad. If Grant isn't > interested in performing a maintainer role, I'd be willing to pick up > that function (which'll be ironic, because that's the kind of thing > that Linaro's been doing to me over the last few years... picking > stuff off my plate without any discussion or agreement with me first, > leaving me with almost nothing to do. No, I'm not pissed at that... > not much.) > > I guess if you were to submit patches to Andrew, Andrew may take them > in this circumstance and eventually send them on to Linus. Andrew? > > -- > FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 10.5Mbps down 400kbps up > according to speedtest.net.
Hi Rob, Am Dienstag, den 10.03.2015, 14:05 -0500 schrieb Rob Herring: > I've only been copied on this latest pull request and a version from > March of last year which Grant nak'ed. This series did not go to > devicetree list either. I'll take a look at the series. My bad, I should have copied you, too. Thanks for having a look now. The nak'ed series (https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/3/20/664) indeed already included the "of: Add OF graph helper to get a specific port by id" and "of: Add OF graph helpers to iterate over ports" patches, but Grant's nak applied to the first patch, "of: Parse OF graph into graph structure", which I then dropped. > If there is an explanation of how Grant's nak was addressed that would > speed up my review. See above. The other two patches have been uncontroversial. The of_graph_get_next_endpoint and for_each_endpoint_of_node patches fix an in-kernel API that was too easy to use incorrectly, and the of_graph_get_port_by_id patch I can't remember being commented on at all. > I'm not applying for v4.0 though. If you decide to apply them, please consider merging the tag and giving your ack for it to be merged into the other subsystem trees, too. regards Philipp
Hi Rob, Philipp, Am Mittwoch, 11. März 2015, 09:51:21 schrieb Philipp Zabel: > Am Dienstag, den 10.03.2015, 14:05 -0500 schrieb Rob Herring: > > I've only been copied on this latest pull request and a version from > > March of last year which Grant nak'ed. This series did not go to > > devicetree list either. I'll take a look at the series. > > My bad, I should have copied you, too. Thanks for having a look now. any news on this? Because it looks like I'll need the of_graph_get_port_by_id functionality in the short term, it'll be nice to not having to opencode this :-) Thanks Heiko > > The nak'ed series (https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/3/20/664) indeed already > included the "of: Add OF graph helper to get a specific port by id" and > "of: Add OF graph helpers to iterate over ports" patches, but Grant's > nak applied to the first patch, "of: Parse OF graph into graph > structure", which I then dropped. > > > If there is an explanation of how Grant's nak was addressed that would > > speed up my review. > > See above. The other two patches have been uncontroversial. The > of_graph_get_next_endpoint and for_each_endpoint_of_node patches > fix an in-kernel API that was too easy to use incorrectly, and > the of_graph_get_port_by_id patch I can't remember being > commented on at all. > > > I'm not applying for v4.0 though. > > If you decide to apply them, please consider merging the tag and giving > your ack for it to be merged into the other subsystem trees, too. > > regards > Philipp > > > _______________________________________________ > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 05:29:02PM +0100, Heiko Stuebner wrote: > Hi Rob, Philipp, > > Am Mittwoch, 11. März 2015, 09:51:21 schrieb Philipp Zabel: > > Am Dienstag, den 10.03.2015, 14:05 -0500 schrieb Rob Herring: > > > I've only been copied on this latest pull request and a version from > > > March of last year which Grant nak'ed. This series did not go to > > > devicetree list either. I'll take a look at the series. > > > > My bad, I should have copied you, too. Thanks for having a look now. > > any news on this? > > Because it looks like I'll need the of_graph_get_port_by_id functionality in > the short term, it'll be nice to not having to opencode this :-) Oh hell, you mean this still hasn't been merged for the next merge window? What's going on, Grant? Andrew, can you please take this if we send you the individual patches? If not, I'll merge it into my tree, and send it to Linus myself. If Grant wakes up, we can address any comments he has at that time by additional patches. (I'll give Grant an extra few days to reply to this mail...)
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 4:15 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 05:29:02PM +0100, Heiko Stuebner wrote: >> Hi Rob, Philipp, >> >> Am Mittwoch, 11. März 2015, 09:51:21 schrieb Philipp Zabel: >> > Am Dienstag, den 10.03.2015, 14:05 -0500 schrieb Rob Herring: >> > > I've only been copied on this latest pull request and a version from >> > > March of last year which Grant nak'ed. This series did not go to >> > > devicetree list either. I'll take a look at the series. >> > >> > My bad, I should have copied you, too. Thanks for having a look now. >> >> any news on this? >> >> Because it looks like I'll need the of_graph_get_port_by_id functionality in >> the short term, it'll be nice to not having to opencode this :-) > > Oh hell, you mean this still hasn't been merged for the next merge window? > > What's going on, Grant? > > Andrew, can you please take this if we send you the individual patches? > If not, I'll merge it into my tree, and send it to Linus myself. If > Grant wakes up, we can address any comments he has at that time by > additional patches. (I'll give Grant an extra few days to reply to > this mail...) I've merged this for 4.1. It is in my for-next branch[1]. Rob [1] git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/robh/linux.git
Hi Rob, Am Dienstag, den 24.03.2015, 23:42 -0500 schrieb Rob Herring: > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 4:15 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux > <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 05:29:02PM +0100, Heiko Stuebner wrote: > >> Hi Rob, Philipp, > >> > >> Am Mittwoch, 11. März 2015, 09:51:21 schrieb Philipp Zabel: > >> > Am Dienstag, den 10.03.2015, 14:05 -0500 schrieb Rob Herring: > >> > > I've only been copied on this latest pull request and a version from > >> > > March of last year which Grant nak'ed. This series did not go to > >> > > devicetree list either. I'll take a look at the series. > >> > > >> > My bad, I should have copied you, too. Thanks for having a look now. > >> > >> any news on this? > >> > >> Because it looks like I'll need the of_graph_get_port_by_id functionality in > >> the short term, it'll be nice to not having to opencode this :-) > > > > Oh hell, you mean this still hasn't been merged for the next merge window? > > > > What's going on, Grant? > > > > Andrew, can you please take this if we send you the individual patches? > > If not, I'll merge it into my tree, and send it to Linus myself. If > > Grant wakes up, we can address any comments he has at that time by > > additional patches. (I'll give Grant an extra few days to reply to > > this mail...) > > I've merged this for 4.1. It is in my for-next branch[1]. > > Rob > > [1] git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/robh/linux.git Thank you. Can I have your ok to merge the same into a pull requests going out to the drm subsystem tree? regards Philipp
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 4:15 AM, Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de> wrote: > Hi Rob, > > Am Dienstag, den 24.03.2015, 23:42 -0500 schrieb Rob Herring: >> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 4:15 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux >> <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote: >> > On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 05:29:02PM +0100, Heiko Stuebner wrote: >> >> Hi Rob, Philipp, >> >> >> >> Am Mittwoch, 11. März 2015, 09:51:21 schrieb Philipp Zabel: >> >> > Am Dienstag, den 10.03.2015, 14:05 -0500 schrieb Rob Herring: >> >> > > I've only been copied on this latest pull request and a version from >> >> > > March of last year which Grant nak'ed. This series did not go to >> >> > > devicetree list either. I'll take a look at the series. >> >> > >> >> > My bad, I should have copied you, too. Thanks for having a look now. >> >> >> >> any news on this? >> >> >> >> Because it looks like I'll need the of_graph_get_port_by_id functionality in >> >> the short term, it'll be nice to not having to opencode this :-) >> > >> > Oh hell, you mean this still hasn't been merged for the next merge window? >> > >> > What's going on, Grant? >> > >> > Andrew, can you please take this if we send you the individual patches? >> > If not, I'll merge it into my tree, and send it to Linus myself. If >> > Grant wakes up, we can address any comments he has at that time by >> > additional patches. (I'll give Grant an extra few days to reply to >> > this mail...) >> >> I've merged this for 4.1. It is in my for-next branch[1]. >> >> Rob >> >> [1] git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/robh/linux.git > > Thank you. Can I have your ok to merge the same into a pull requests > going out to the drm subsystem tree? Sure. Rob
Hi Grant, Rob, this series has been around for quite some time now, basically unchanged except for adding fixes for new users of the API that keep appearing over time in different subsystems. It would be really helpful to get this merged for v4.0. Could you still make this happen? Alternatively, could I please get your ack to allow this tag to be merged into the other subsystem trees for v4.1 so that patches that depend on it don't have to wait for yet another merge window? best regards Philipp The following changes since commit c517d838eb7d07bbe9507871fab3931deccff539: Linux 4.0-rc1 (2015-02-22 18:21:14 -0800) are available in the git repository at: git://git.pengutronix.de/git/pza/linux.git tags/of-graph-for-4.0 for you to fetch changes up to bfe446e37c4efd8ade454911e8f80414bcbfc10d: of: Add of_graph_get_port_by_id function (2015-02-23 11:42:24 +0100) ---------------------------------------------------------------- of: Add of-graph helpers to loop over endpoints and find ports by id This series converts of_graph_get_next_endpoint to decrement the refcount of the passed prev parameter. This allows to add a for_each_endpoint_of_node helper macro to loop over all endpoints in a device tree node. The of_graph_get_port_by_id function is added to retrieve a port by its known port id (contained in the reg property) from the device tree. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Philipp Zabel (3): of: Decrement refcount of previous endpoint in of_graph_get_next_endpoint of: Add for_each_endpoint_of_node helper macro of: Add of_graph_get_port_by_id function drivers/coresight/of_coresight.c | 13 ++----- drivers/gpu/drm/imx/imx-drm-core.c | 11 +----- drivers/gpu/drm/rcar-du/rcar_du_kms.c | 15 +++------ drivers/media/platform/am437x/am437x-vpfe.c | 1 - drivers/media/platform/soc_camera/soc_camera.c | 3 +- drivers/of/base.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++----- drivers/video/fbdev/omap2/dss/omapdss-boot-init.c | 7 +--- include/linux/of_graph.h | 18 ++++++++++ 8 files changed, 61 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-)