| Message ID | 1538124204-31406-1-git-send-email-madalin.bucur@nxp.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | soc/fsl/qbman: DPAA QBMan fixes and additions | expand |
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 3:44 AM Madalin Bucur <madalin.bucur@nxp.com> wrote: > Applied 1-4 to for-next while waiting for clarification on 5/5. And updated the prefix to "soc: fsl:" style to be aligned with arm-soc convention. Please try to use that style in the future for soc/fsl patches. > This patch set brings a number of fixes and the option to control > the QMan portal interrupt coalescing. > > Changes from v1: > - change CPU 0 with any online CPU to allow CPU 0 to be taken offline > - move common code in a function > - address all places in the code where the portal interrupt was affined > to CPU 0 > - remove unrelated change from patch adding 64 bit DMA addressing > requirement > > Madalin Bucur (2): > soc/fsl/qbman: replace CPU 0 with any online CPU in hotplug handlers > soc/fsl_qbman: export coalesce change API > > Roy Pledge (3): > soc/fsl/qbman: Check if CPU is offline when initializing portals > soc/fsl/qbman: Add 64 bit DMA addressing requirement to QBMan > soc/fsl/qbman: Use last response to determine valid bit > > drivers/soc/fsl/qbman/Kconfig | 2 +- > drivers/soc/fsl/qbman/bman.c | 6 ++--- > drivers/soc/fsl/qbman/bman_portal.c | 4 ++- > drivers/soc/fsl/qbman/dpaa_sys.h | 20 ++++++++++++++ > drivers/soc/fsl/qbman/qman.c | 53 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- > drivers/soc/fsl/qbman/qman_portal.c | 6 +++-- > include/soc/fsl/qman.h | 27 +++++++++++++++++++ > 7 files changed, 104 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) > > -- > 2.1.0 >
> -----Original Message----- > From: Li Yang [mailto:leoyang.li@nxp.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 2, 2018 1:30 AM > To: Madalin-cristian Bucur <madalin.bucur@nxp.com> > Cc: Roy Pledge <roy.pledge@nxp.com>; Claudiu Manoil > <claudiu.manoil@nxp.com>; Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>; Scott > Wood <oss@buserror.net>; moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM > ARCHITECTURE <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>; linuxppc-dev > <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] soc/fsl/qbman: DPAA QBMan fixes and additions > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 3:44 AM Madalin Bucur <madalin.bucur@nxp.com> > wrote: > > > > Applied 1-4 to for-next while waiting for clarification on 5/5. And > updated the prefix to "soc: fsl:" style to be aligned with arm-soc > convention. Please try to use that style in the future for soc/fsl > patches. Thank you, I've sent an email about the APIs. I'm not sure we need to align the prefix to arm-soc as the soc/fsl does not service only ARM but also PPC based SoCs and historically we've been using the soc/* format. Regards, Madalin
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 1:29 AM Madalin-cristian Bucur <madalin.bucur@nxp.com> wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Li Yang [mailto:leoyang.li@nxp.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, October 2, 2018 1:30 AM > > To: Madalin-cristian Bucur <madalin.bucur@nxp.com> > > Cc: Roy Pledge <roy.pledge@nxp.com>; Claudiu Manoil > > <claudiu.manoil@nxp.com>; Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>; Scott > > Wood <oss@buserror.net>; moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM > > ARCHITECTURE <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>; linuxppc-dev > > <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] soc/fsl/qbman: DPAA QBMan fixes and additions > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 3:44 AM Madalin Bucur <madalin.bucur@nxp.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > Applied 1-4 to for-next while waiting for clarification on 5/5. And > > updated the prefix to "soc: fsl:" style to be aligned with arm-soc > > convention. Please try to use that style in the future for soc/fsl > > patches. > > Thank you, I've sent an email about the APIs. > I'm not sure we need to align the prefix to arm-soc as the soc/fsl does not > service only ARM but also PPC based SoCs and historically we've been using > the soc/* format. There is no kernel wide guideline about the format of subsystem prefix in the patch subject. Different subsystems have their own preferrences. Soc is not considered as a separate subsystem, so we followed the convention of the architectural subsystem that we merge patches through. Since we normally get soc patches through the arm-soc tree right now, I think it would be better to follow the convention of arm-soc to make them not looking too different in the arm-soc pull requests. Not sure how sensetive ARM-SOC maintainers feel about this though. Regards, Leo