[PATCH] ARM: l2c: prima2: only call l2x0_of_init() on matching nodes

[Barry Song]

2014-05-22 19:27 GMT+08:00 Russell King - ARM Linux <linux at arm.linux.org.uk>:
> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 07:04:14PM +0800, Barry Song wrote:
>> 2014-05-22 17:33 GMT+08:00 Russell King - ARM Linux <linux at arm.linux.org.uk>:
>> > On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 11:40:33PM +0800, Barry Song wrote:
>> >> 2014-04-29 23:14 GMT+08:00 Russell King - ARM Linux <linux at arm.linux.org.uk>:
>> >> > On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 11:05:06PM +0800, Barry Song wrote:
>> >> >> 2014-04-28 22:52 GMT+08:00 Russell King - ARM Linux <linux at arm.linux.org.uk>:
>> >> >> > On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 10:37:09AM -0400, Matt Porter wrote:
>> >> >> >> The "fix" is tested against bcm281xx and bcm21664 as that is what the
>> >> >> >> l2c cleanup breaks in -next. As mentioned, I don't have the sirfsoc h/w
>> >> >> >> so this first attempt at a fix also breaks their platform. It can be
>> >> >> >> addressed by adding those platform specific compatibles back to the dts,
>> >> >> >> of course.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I'd much prefer that the sirfsoc folks fix this...it's going to break
>> >> >> >> other platforms in a multi v7 build.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Well, it's about time we got rid of this from platform specific code
>> >> >> > anyway, taking it away from platform maintainers to mess around with.
>> >> >> > So that's what I'm doing.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > It's worth noting that if you build a single zImage with exynos also
>> >> >> > enabled, then you also end up with an unconditional call from that
>> >> >> > code to l2x0_of_init() with it's own magic numbers - and that applies
>> >> >> > before my changes.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > So let's fix this properly and yank this crap from platform maintainers
>> >> >> > fingers.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> i mentioned dropping specific dts compatible prop will break non-csr
>> >> >> platforms in the mail thread "ARM: prima2: remove L2 cache size
>> >> >> override" and i said i was going to send v2. you said you need it
>> >> >> before rc6. now it has been sent, but i am sorry it is not against
>> >> >> next-20140424.
>> >> >
>> >> > FFS.  IT HASN'T BEEN SENT.  All that I did was drop it into linux-next
>> >> > so that more people would get off their fat backsides and test this
>> >> > fscking patch set - something which hasn't happened because no one
>> >> > pays attention to emails sent to mailing lists.
>> >>
>> >> so your point is people don't pay attention to your mails? or you are
>> >> ignored? i think that is 100% not real. i think your opinions and
>> >> mails are always respected as you are the chief arm linux expert.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > I also told you that this was what I was going to do.  But... is it
>> >> > really on to hold up such a large patch set which impacts virtually
>> >> > everyone because _you_ don't have time to sort out your small special
>> >> > requirements - no it is not, that's just fscking selfish.
>> >> >
>> >> > Anyway, I've had it with dealing with platform maintainers, I've yanked
>> >> > this patch set, and I'm no longer planning to do anything with it -
>> >> > platform maintainers have destroyed my will to get any of this series
>> >> > into the kernel.
>> >>
>> >> no, i am trying to follow your suggestion to make patch set merged and
>> >> l2 codes cleaned.
>> >> i have been trying to follow your will until now, and from the beginning.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > So, the L2 cache code is going to remain in its current state, and it's
>> >> > going to rot because it's _FAR_ too much effort dealing with slow people
>> >> > like yourselves, or people who want the series split up, or people who
>> >> > whinge that there aren't any acks there (WELL GET OFF YOUR FAT BACKSIDES
>> >> > AND SEND ME SOME IF YOU CARE ABOUT THIS - no, don't, I'm no longer pushing
>> >> > this series.)
>> >>
>> >> people might be "selfish", but people might have some reasons to
>> >> response slowly, like holiday or family issue.
>> >> how about taking it easy? it doesn't prove you are not respected by
>> >> platform maintainers.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > This is the last time I'm going to ever try cleaning up any core ARM code.
>> >> > Core ARM maintanence is impossible in this environment with arm-soc split
>> >> > from core ARM stuff, because core ARM stuff /always/ impacts on SoC
>> >> > specific code.  You can't get away from that.
>> >> >
>> >> > My position in this community has been made impossible and obsolete by
>> >> > Linaro.  I'm at the point of walking away from this crap.
>> >>
>> >> just fix the relationship and communication, that is good enough. you
>> >> have done things so well, there is no reason to give up.
>> >
>> > So, just as I thought...
>> >
>> > -rc6 has now been released, and YOU have done NOTHING to resolve any of
>> > the issues you have with this patch set - which is precisely on track
>> > with how you have behaved towards this set of changes on the past - where
>> > you promised imformation/patches and never delivered.
>> >
>> > Well, right now I'm just not going to *care* one bit about Prima2.  If
>> > this patch set breaks it, tough.  You've had plenty of opportunity to
>> > deal with this, but instead you've chosen to just whinge about it and
>> > then do precisely nothing to assist.
>>
>> i have no idea why you are saying this. if you checked the email, i
>> have sent a patch in last month.
>>
>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg327151.html
>>
>> but i got no reply and you said you will not handle l2....
>
> I said I won't deal with this patch set anymore because I got *thoroughly*
> frustrated with you and the lack of cooperation from many of the SoC people.
> It seems that the only way to get things done around here is to railroad
> them into linux-next and wait for people to notice the changes.  That's
> really not an acceptable way of doing development, but it's the *only*
> one which gets people's attention.  Sending emails does not work, because
> people ignore them.
>
> Moreover, your patch is a total rewrite of several of my patches, and is
> not an incremental set of changes.  Given that my patch set which was last
> posted has the SoC changes done incrementally amongst the other changes,
> this is just not an acceptable approach, so frankly the patch is useless
> to me.

in v1, you suggested me moving l2x0_init to init_irq, right? so this
was done five days after your suggestion. but you choiced to ignore it
and didn't say your real intention to me. i am a completely stupid man
and i can't figure out what is your final choice if you didn't say
anything and just complained stupid man like me didn't assist you.

if the information you wanted from me is

+       .l2c_aux_val
+       .l2c_aux_mask

it is clear that my v1 and v2 have exposed enought information for
that. why are you saying i didn't provide information to you?

i have no idea what has been happening for the whole thing. i was
asked to one thing in one way, then after one month, i was told it is
useless.  i am totally confused.

>
> --
> FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: now at 9.7Mbps down 460kbps up... slowly
> improving, and getting towards what was expected from it.

-barry