Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/4] drm: Introduce generic probe function for component based masters.

From: Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
	Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
	Liviu Dudau <Liviu.Dudau@arm.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	linux-rockchip <linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org>,
	LAKML <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/4] drm: Introduce generic probe function for component based masters.
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 16:04:27 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CACvgo53e-zFcDawbPNaOB8sQcNH-sFDmYi5sXRhp5z6T9oC2=A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151019145027.GF32532@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>

On 19 October 2015 at 15:50, Russell King - ARM Linux
<linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 04:42:25PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 02:26:38PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 02:02:58PM +0100, Liviu Dudau wrote:
>> > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 01:25:37PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> > > > Please don't move this into here, it's completely inappropriate.  Just
>> > > > because something makes use of this does not mean they only support
>> > > > 32-bit DMA.  Besides, this has nothing to do with whether or not it's
>> > > > OF-based or not.
>> > >
>> > > Understood. My thinking process was that component-based drivers are all
>> > > OF-enabled (how else do you make use of the framework?) and 32-bit DMA is
>> > > present in 2 out of 3 drivers that are converted, so it looks to be common
>> > > enough that adding it to armada would not hurt. It was all done in the name of
>> > > collecting common code in a single function.
>> >
>> > Which is an utterly crap reason.
>> >
>> > It's also not appropriate.  I'm really not sure why you think that moving
>> > this here would in any way be appropriate - from my point of view, the
>> > mere proposal is utterly insane.
>> >
>> > The "container" device does not do any DMA, so it's inappropriate for
>> > it to have DMA masks set or negotiated on it.  So, actually, no one
>> > should be setting the DMA mask for their container device.  It's wrong.
>>
>> I think (and my opinion doesn't carry as much wheight here on dri-devel
>> than intel-gfx) the above is over the top bashing of a new contributor to
>> drm who really seems trying to do right. I think that's unecessary,
>> especially since you follow up with the reasonable reply below.
>
> It's justified because it took _two_ messages to get the point across.
> The first one asking nicely didn't make the necessary impact.
>
Unlike Daniel, I carry little to no weight here, yet bashing on people
if they don't get things correct the first time is inconsiderable.
We are people - we can misread/misinterpret things, have a headache
and/or just a bad day. If that makes you angry/annoyed, please don't
reply straight away, but give it a few hours/day for the emotions to
settle.

Thanks
Emil