[PATCH 3/3][v4] staging: fsl-mc: move bus driver out of staging

[Laurentiu Tudor]

Hi Marc,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Zyngier [mailto:marc.zyngier at arm.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 10:41 AM
> 
> On Mon, May 22 2017 at  7:12:39 am GMT, Laurentiu Tudor
> <laurentiu.tudor at nxp.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Laurentiu,
> 
> > Hi Marc,
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Marc Zyngier [mailto:marc.zyngier at arm.com]
> >> Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2017 9:43 AM
> >> To: Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg at gmail.com>
> >>
> >> On Fri, May 19 2017 at 02:41:43 PM, Matthias Brugger
> >> <matthias.bgg at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On 19/05/17 15:13, laurentiu.tudor at nxp.com wrote:
> >> >> From: Stuart Yoder <stuart.yoder at nxp.com>
> >> >>
> >> >> Move the source files out of staging into their final locations:
> >> >>    -include files in drivers/staging/fsl-mc/include go to include/linux/fsl
> >> >>    -irq-gic-v3-its-fsl-mc-msi.c goes to drivers/irqchip
> >> >
> >> > This driver has as compatible "arm,gic-v3-its". I wonder if this is
> >> > correct and if it should be moved like this out of staging.
> >>
> >> This is no different from the way we handle *any* bus that uses the
> >> GICv3 ITS as an MSI controller. Each bus provides its glue code that
> >> latches onto the ITS node, and calls into the generic code.
> >>
> >> Now, when it comes to moving this out of staging, here is my concern:
> >> There is mention of a userspace tool (restool) used to control the
> >> HW. Where is this tool? Where is the user ABI documented?
> >
> > The tool is published here:
> >
> > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgit
> > hub.com%2Fqoriq-open-
> source%2Frestool&data=01%7C01%7Claurentiu.tudor%4
> >
> 0nxp.com%7Cd3c05908969d499cd4a008d4a0e5eaae%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92
> cd99c
> >
> 5c301635%7C0&sdata=2sEXCZ%2BAFlTtle8N3yWJPsGRve8cXMRPzyumlwqOhbg
> %3D&re
> > served=0
> >
> > There are two ways of configuring the mc-bus:
> >  - a static one, through a FDT based configuration file (we call it
> > DPL), documented in the refman linked below, chapter 22.
> >  - a dynamic one, using this restool utility.
> > Please note the usage of restool is optional.
> 
> Optional or not, it still is a userspace ABI, and while I can see restool issuing ioctl
> system calls to configure the HW, I cannot see the corresponding code in the
> kernel tree. So how does it work?
> If the syscall interface is not present in the mainline kernel, drop the reference
> to it in the documentation. If it is there (and I obviously missed it), document it,
> and get it reviewed. 

Our original plan was to first get the bus out of staging and after that submit the restool support ASAP (patches are done - so I'm thinking at few days timeframe).
if this is not acceptable, I can drop the restool reference from the README and resubmit the patch series. We'll re-add the reference together with the restool support patches.

> If there are associated DT bindings to the kernel code, they
> must be documented (and reviewed) as part of the device-tree documentation,
> and not in some obscure, hard to access document.

There's only one binding involved and it's already accepted [1].

[snip]

> >
> > We're also working on publishing the docs on github so that they're
> > more accessible.
> 
> That'd be great, because the way the registration process is presented, I'd have
> to agree to the Access Agreement *before* having a chance to read it. Not
> going to happen...

Sorry about that. Not much I can do. :-( 

[1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/misc/fsl,qoriq-mc.txt

---
Best Regards, Laurentiu