[PATCHv7 07/13] irqdomain: add function to find a MSI irq_domain

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt]

On Thu, 2013-08-08 at 10:22 +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Dear Benjamin Herrenschmidt,

> I'm sorry, but I'm not buying this. There must be some continuity when
> the maintenance of one subsystem transitions from one maintainer to
> another. I'm perfectly ok with accepting some hick-ups, but not radical
> changes in design decisions.

Well, I wrote it in the first place :-)

> What you're asking me to do is to go completely backwards compared to
> the comments and review Grant made. The irqdomain-based allocator was
> suggested by Grant (see my previous e-mail, or Grant reply at
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2013-June/175430.html)
> and was even Acked-by Grant in
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2013-July/187082.html.
> 
> Note that this patch set has been posted at the following dates:
> 
>  * PATCH version 7 sent on August, 7th 2013
>  * PATCH version 6 sent on August, 1st 2013
>  * PATCH version 5 sent on July, 15th 2013
>  * PATCH version 4 sent on July, 1st 2013
>  * PATCH version 3 sent on June, 19th 2013
>  * PATCH version 2 sent on June, 6th 2013
>  * RFC version 1 sent on March, 26th 2013

I'm really sorry and I feel your pain. I have not actively been
monitoring any of that stuff, and you might have gotten away without
CC'ing me or asking for my point of view but you did (and I thank you
for that), and sadly this is my opinion.

> So it has been around since 4 months, I've taken into account all the
> comments from the various maintainers who were involved, and especially
> the comments from Grant. You cannot ask me now, as we are approaching
> the next merge window for which this code is intended, to take
> completely opposite design choices than what the previous irqdomain
> maintainer was suggesting.

I can and I do. However, I also leave the opportunity of bringing in a
third party into the debate with a well known track record to overrule
me if he thinks I'm being unnecessarily obstructive.

> Could you contact Grant and align with him on those design decisions?
> It would also be good if you could read the past discussions on this
> patch set, because all what you're pointing at has already been
> discussed at length, as I pointed out in my previous e-mail.

I can try... Grant, are you around ? (I've added you to the CC list), we
might be able to catch up on IRC and discuss it ...

Cheers,
Ben.


> Thanks,
> 
> Thomas