All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michal Kazior <michal.kazior@tieto.com>
To: Kalle Valo <kvalo@qca.qualcomm.com>
Cc: Rajkumar Manoharan <rmanohar@qti.qualcomm.com>,
	"ath10k@lists.infradead.org" <ath10k@lists.infradead.org>,
	linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ath10k: fix htt t2h message conflicts among firmware revisions
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 11:14:00 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+BoTQkZ-dZUq0Uqy0uAUNxzz0uZtWB4sWwsZod3Wysn_a_YoQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87r3sljpsa.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com>

On 19 March 2015 at 10:32, Kalle Valo <kvalo@qca.qualcomm.com> wrote:
> Michal Kazior <michal.kazior@tieto.com> writes:
>
>>> When I was adding WMI_OP_VERSION, my idea was that we will add similar
>>> version for HTT as well once we need it. But I guess this is good enough
>>> for now, we can add HTT_OP_VERSION later if more changes are needed.
>>
>> Maybe it should be renamed to OP_VERSION (drop the WMI_) or BRANCH_ID
>> or something else?
>>
>> It's not like HTT wasn't diverging. It was. However only WMI ABI was
>> seeing major breakage that needed taking care of. HTT changes were
>> small enough and could be ignored until now.
>
> I'm a bit worried that having one id for everything will be more
> difficult to maintain, that's why I created WMI_OP_VERSION in the first
> place. IMHO it's lot cleaner codewise to have one id for WMI interface
> and one id for HTT (eg. HTT_OP_VERSION). What do you think?

Currently both WMI and HTT seem to be developed in tandem within their
own branches. HTT_OP_VERSION would make sense if you assume HTT/WMI
development will be developed in parallel branches.

Would that even make sense from _any_ perspective? Current branching
model seems to be based on per-purpose branching and isolation. The
thinking behind this might be this allows better parallelization of
efforts between teams and tasks. If my assertion is correct then both
master-be-all branching and independent WMI/HTT branching stands in
conflict with the per-purpose branch isolation so a single
OP_VERSION/BRANCH_ID should suffice for ath10k.

With this htt conflict patch WMI_OP_VERSION is already being treated
as OP_VERSION effectively (and thus change the meaning of it).

Would it be much of a problem to re-rename OP_VERSION and introduce
HTT_OP_VERSION later? Hmm..


Michał

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michal Kazior <michal.kazior@tieto.com>
To: Kalle Valo <kvalo@qca.qualcomm.com>
Cc: linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
	Rajkumar Manoharan <rmanohar@qti.qualcomm.com>,
	"ath10k@lists.infradead.org" <ath10k@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ath10k: fix htt t2h message conflicts among firmware revisions
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 11:14:00 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+BoTQkZ-dZUq0Uqy0uAUNxzz0uZtWB4sWwsZod3Wysn_a_YoQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87r3sljpsa.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com>

On 19 March 2015 at 10:32, Kalle Valo <kvalo@qca.qualcomm.com> wrote:
> Michal Kazior <michal.kazior@tieto.com> writes:
>
>>> When I was adding WMI_OP_VERSION, my idea was that we will add similar
>>> version for HTT as well once we need it. But I guess this is good enough
>>> for now, we can add HTT_OP_VERSION later if more changes are needed.
>>
>> Maybe it should be renamed to OP_VERSION (drop the WMI_) or BRANCH_ID
>> or something else?
>>
>> It's not like HTT wasn't diverging. It was. However only WMI ABI was
>> seeing major breakage that needed taking care of. HTT changes were
>> small enough and could be ignored until now.
>
> I'm a bit worried that having one id for everything will be more
> difficult to maintain, that's why I created WMI_OP_VERSION in the first
> place. IMHO it's lot cleaner codewise to have one id for WMI interface
> and one id for HTT (eg. HTT_OP_VERSION). What do you think?

Currently both WMI and HTT seem to be developed in tandem within their
own branches. HTT_OP_VERSION would make sense if you assume HTT/WMI
development will be developed in parallel branches.

Would that even make sense from _any_ perspective? Current branching
model seems to be based on per-purpose branching and isolation. The
thinking behind this might be this allows better parallelization of
efforts between teams and tasks. If my assertion is correct then both
master-be-all branching and independent WMI/HTT branching stands in
conflict with the per-purpose branch isolation so a single
OP_VERSION/BRANCH_ID should suffice for ath10k.

With this htt conflict patch WMI_OP_VERSION is already being treated
as OP_VERSION effectively (and thus change the meaning of it).

Would it be much of a problem to re-rename OP_VERSION and introduce
HTT_OP_VERSION later? Hmm..


Michał

_______________________________________________
ath10k mailing list
ath10k@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k

  reply	other threads:[~2015-03-19 10:14 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-03-11  9:33 [PATCH] ath10k: fix htt t2h message conflicts among firmware revisions Rajkumar Manoharan
2015-03-11  9:33 ` Rajkumar Manoharan
2015-03-19  8:27 ` Kalle Valo
2015-03-19  8:27   ` Kalle Valo
2015-03-19  8:40   ` Michal Kazior
2015-03-19  8:40     ` Michal Kazior
2015-03-19  9:32     ` Kalle Valo
2015-03-19  9:32       ` Kalle Valo
2015-03-19 10:14       ` Michal Kazior [this message]
2015-03-19 10:14         ` Michal Kazior

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=CA+BoTQkZ-dZUq0Uqy0uAUNxzz0uZtWB4sWwsZod3Wysn_a_YoQ@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=michal.kazior@tieto.com \
    --cc=ath10k@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=kvalo@qca.qualcomm.com \
    --cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rmanohar@qti.qualcomm.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.