[RFC PATCH v4 2/8] bus/cdx: add the cdx bus driver

[Gupta, Nipun]

[AMD Official Use Only - General]



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg KH <gregkh at linuxfoundation.org>
> Sent: Friday, October 14, 2022 12:45 PM
> To: Gupta, Nipun <Nipun.Gupta at amd.com>
> Cc: robh+dt at kernel.org; krzysztof.kozlowski+dt at linaro.org; rafael at kernel.org;
> eric.auger at redhat.com; alex.williamson at redhat.com; cohuck at redhat.com;
> Gupta, Puneet (DCG-ENG) <puneet.gupta at amd.com>;
> song.bao.hua at hisilicon.com; mchehab+huawei at kernel.org; maz at kernel.org;
> f.fainelli at gmail.com; jeffrey.l.hugo at gmail.com; saravanak at google.com;
> Michael.Srba at seznam.cz; mani at kernel.org; yishaih at nvidia.com;
> jgg at ziepe.ca; jgg at nvidia.com; robin.murphy at arm.com; will at kernel.org;
> joro at 8bytes.org; masahiroy at kernel.org; ndesaulniers at google.com; linux-arm-
> kernel at lists.infradead.org; linux-kbuild at vger.kernel.org; linux-
> kernel at vger.kernel.org; devicetree at vger.kernel.org; kvm at vger.kernel.org;
> okaya at kernel.org; Anand, Harpreet <harpreet.anand at amd.com>; Agarwal,
> Nikhil <nikhil.agarwal at amd.com>; Simek, Michal <michal.simek at amd.com>;
> Radovanovic, Aleksandar <aleksandar.radovanovic at amd.com>; git (AMD-Xilinx)
> <git at amd.com>
> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 2/8] bus/cdx: add the cdx bus driver
> 
> Caution: This message originated from an External Source. Use proper caution
> when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
> 
> 
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 10:10:43AM +0530, Nipun Gupta wrote:
> > CDX bus supports the scanning and probing of FPGA based
> > devices. These devices are registered as CDX devices.
> >
> > The bus driver sets up the basic infrastructure and triggers
> > the cdx controller to scan the cdx devices once registered.
> >
> > CDX bus uses ops registered by the CDX controller to scan,
> > reset and write MSI message on the CDX devices.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Nipun Gupta <nipun.gupta at amd.com>
> 
> Why is this all still "RFC"?  RFC means to me, "I don't know what to do
> here, so here's a half-baked proposal".  When you are on v4 of a RFC,
> that is a huge sign that this all isn't working at all.  Also, where is
> the questions that you still have that you need help with here?
> 
> Also, I don't review RFC changes normally as that means the submitter
> doesn't think they are good enough to be submitted, so why would I
> review them when I have hundreds of other changes that submitters do
> think are good enough?
> 
> Can you just submit these "for real" if they work properly for you and
> you have tested them and you would be happy if they are accepted.

We are in the process of merging the firmware support which is stubbed
in the current series. We will send out a non-RFC change in the next spin
with the integrated firmware support.

Thanks,
Nipun

> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h