[PATCH 1/8] staging: tidspbridge - remove req_addr from proc_map

[Felipe Contreras]

fernando.lugo at ti.com wrote:
> > fernando.lugo at ti.com wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 3:51 AM, Fernando Guzman Lugo 
> > > > <x0095840 at ti.com> wrote:
> > > > > The device address is assigned by tidspbridge no need for
> > > > that parameter anymore.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Fernando Guzman Lugo <x0095840 at ti.com>
> > > > 
> > > > This would break the API with user-space, right?
> > > 
> > > Yes, user-space needs to be changed accordingly.
> > 
> > Wouldn't it make sense to avoid stuffing so many changes at 
> > once including ABI breakage?
> > 
> > Does user-space really _needs_ to be changed? Can't you just 
> > ignore that argument?
> 
> Actually, I had a previous version of that patch where I only
> Ignored that paramteter. But after thinking again and seeing
> How the long time ago depreacted function are still there I 
> Removed the parameter in order to force apps to make the change.

Again, can we concentrate on first getting this thing to work?

We can think on breaking things again later.

> You can ignore that argument at API level, so all users of the
> API not need to have change (in that momment). That should be
> Only few line change.

Yes, that's what I'm proposing.

> > > > I think this change should be delayed, preferably after we have a 
> > > > working tidspbridge.
> > > 
> > > The issue you were seeing must be fixed with patch 2/8, and 
> > Having all 
> > > the dependencies tidspbridge has to be working Properly.
> > 
> > Yes, which might not happen at .37. If we revert the iommu 
> > stuff, we might have a chance at having a working bridge on .37.
> 
> But havi that merged in tidspbridge make more pressure to merged
> The dependencies, if not maybe that wont have event for .38.

Those patches have been there for a while and there's no sign of when
they'll be merged. Also, remember that the fact that the patches have
been sent doesn't guarantee they would be on this, or even the next
cycle.

Besides, the rule followed here is: it's ready when it's ready. In the
meantime the driver should work, and we can do that rather easily.

> But That is just my opinion if you all are agree revert is the best
> Option I am ok, but I looks like more work reverting and rebaseing
> specially because it is a big change.

git makes this easy.

The hard part is for the people out there that are trying to use this
driver and have to hunt mailing lists and multiple repos just to get
this to work. Moving to staging was supposed to make this easier, not
harder.

-- 
Felipe Contreras