[U-Boot] [PATCH] spi: Zap lpc32xx_ssp driver-related code

[U-Boot] [PATCH] spi: Zap lpc32xx_ssp driver-related code

[Jagan Teki]

Dropped
- lpc32xx_ssp driver
- CONFIG_LPC32XX_SSP, LPC32XX_SSP_TIMEOUT items

Dropped due to:
- no active updates
- no dm conversion
- multiple pings for asking dm-conversion
- no response for dm converted patch
- driver-model migration expiry

Cc: Vladimir Zapolskiy <vz@mleia.com>
Cc: Albert ARIBAUD <albert.aribaud@3adev.fr>
Signed-off-by: Jagan Teki <jagan@amarulasolutions.com>
---
 configs/devkit3250_defconfig |   1 -
 configs/work_92105_defconfig |   1 -
 drivers/spi/Kconfig          |   5 --
 drivers/spi/Makefile         |   1 -
 drivers/spi/lpc32xx_ssp.c    | 134 -----------------------------------
 include/configs/devkit3250.h |   5 --
 include/configs/work_92105.h |   5 --
 scripts/config_whitelist.txt |   1 -
 8 files changed, 153 deletions(-)
 delete mode 100644 drivers/spi/lpc32xx_ssp.c

diff --git a/configs/devkit3250_defconfig b/configs/devkit3250_defconfig
index b739f27803..8fc7763c3a 100644
--- a/configs/devkit3250_defconfig
+++ b/configs/devkit3250_defconfig
@@ -42,7 +42,6 @@ CONFIG_PHY_ADDR_ENABLE=y
 CONFIG_PHY_ADDR=31
 CONFIG_SYS_NS16550=y
 CONFIG_SPI=y
-CONFIG_LPC32XX_SSP=y
 CONFIG_USB=y
 CONFIG_USB_STORAGE=y
 CONFIG_OF_LIBFDT=y
diff --git a/configs/work_92105_defconfig b/configs/work_92105_defconfig
index 105e51a400..61863abeb7 100644
--- a/configs/work_92105_defconfig
+++ b/configs/work_92105_defconfig
@@ -38,4 +38,3 @@ CONFIG_PHYLIB=y
 CONFIG_PHY_ADDR_ENABLE=y
 CONFIG_SYS_NS16550=y
 CONFIG_SPI=y
-CONFIG_LPC32XX_SSP=y
diff --git a/drivers/spi/Kconfig b/drivers/spi/Kconfig
index fb794adae7..7043b5c0f6 100644
--- a/drivers/spi/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/spi/Kconfig
@@ -359,11 +359,6 @@ config KIRKWOOD_SPI
 	  Enable support for SPI on various Marvell SoCs, such as
 	  Kirkwood and Armada 375.
 
-config LPC32XX_SSP
-	bool "LPC32XX SPI Driver"
-	help
-	  Enable support for SPI on LPC32xx
-
 config MPC8XXX_SPI
 	bool "MPC8XXX SPI Driver"
 	help
diff --git a/drivers/spi/Makefile b/drivers/spi/Makefile
index 8be9a4baa2..25add2812d 100644
--- a/drivers/spi/Makefile
+++ b/drivers/spi/Makefile
@@ -32,7 +32,6 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_FSL_ESPI) += fsl_espi.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_FSL_QSPI) += fsl_qspi.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_ICH_SPI) +=  ich.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_KIRKWOOD_SPI) += kirkwood_spi.o
-obj-$(CONFIG_LPC32XX_SSP) += lpc32xx_ssp.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_MESON_SPIFC) += meson_spifc.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_MPC8XX_SPI) += mpc8xx_spi.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_MPC8XXX_SPI) += mpc8xxx_spi.o
diff --git a/drivers/spi/lpc32xx_ssp.c b/drivers/spi/lpc32xx_ssp.c
deleted file mode 100644
index 4b09366317..0000000000
--- a/drivers/spi/lpc32xx_ssp.c
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,134 +0,0 @@
-// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
-/*
- * LPC32xx SSP interface (SPI mode)
- *
- * (C) Copyright 2014  DENX Software Engineering GmbH
- * Written-by: Albert ARIBAUD <albert.aribaud@3adev.fr>
- */
-
-#include <common.h>
-#include <linux/compat.h>
-#include <asm/io.h>
-#include <malloc.h>
-#include <spi.h>
-#include <asm/arch/clk.h>
-
-/* SSP chip registers */
-struct ssp_regs {
-	u32 cr0;
-	u32 cr1;
-	u32 data;
-	u32 sr;
-	u32 cpsr;
-	u32 imsc;
-	u32 ris;
-	u32 mis;
-	u32 icr;
-	u32 dmacr;
-};
-
-/* CR1 register defines  */
-#define SSP_CR1_SSP_ENABLE 0x0002
-
-/* SR register defines  */
-#define SSP_SR_TNF 0x0002
-/* SSP status RX FIFO not empty bit */
-#define SSP_SR_RNE 0x0004
-
-/* lpc32xx spi slave */
-struct lpc32xx_spi_slave {
-	struct spi_slave slave;
-	struct ssp_regs *regs;
-};
-
-static inline struct lpc32xx_spi_slave *to_lpc32xx_spi_slave(
-	struct spi_slave *slave)
-{
-	return container_of(slave, struct lpc32xx_spi_slave, slave);
-}
-
-/* the following is called in sequence by do_spi_xfer() */
-
-struct spi_slave *spi_setup_slave(uint bus, uint cs, uint max_hz, uint mode)
-{
-	struct lpc32xx_spi_slave *lslave;
-
-	/* we only set up SSP0 for now, so ignore bus */
-
-	if (mode & SPI_3WIRE) {
-		pr_err("3-wire mode not supported");
-		return NULL;
-	}
-
-	if (mode & SPI_SLAVE) {
-		pr_err("slave mode not supported\n");
-		return NULL;
-	}
-
-	if (mode & SPI_PREAMBLE) {
-		pr_err("preamble byte skipping not supported\n");
-		return NULL;
-	}
-
-	lslave = spi_alloc_slave(struct lpc32xx_spi_slave, bus, cs);
-	if (!lslave) {
-		printf("SPI_error: Fail to allocate lpc32xx_spi_slave\n");
-		return NULL;
-	}
-
-	lslave->regs = (struct ssp_regs *)SSP0_BASE;
-
-	/*
-	 * 8 bit frame, SPI fmt, 500kbps -> clock divider is 26.
-	 * Set SCR to 0 and CPSDVSR to 26.
-	 */
-
-	writel(0x7, &lslave->regs->cr0); /* 8-bit chunks, SPI, 1 clk/bit */
-	writel(26, &lslave->regs->cpsr); /* SSP clock = HCLK/26 = 500kbps */
-	writel(0, &lslave->regs->imsc); /* do not raise any interrupts */
-	writel(0, &lslave->regs->icr); /* clear any pending interrupt */
-	writel(0, &lslave->regs->dmacr); /* do not do DMAs */
-	writel(SSP_CR1_SSP_ENABLE, &lslave->regs->cr1); /* enable SSP0 */
-	return &lslave->slave;
-}
-
-void spi_free_slave(struct spi_slave *slave)
-{
-	struct lpc32xx_spi_slave *lslave = to_lpc32xx_spi_slave(slave);
-
-	debug("(lpc32xx) spi_free_slave: 0x%08x\n", (u32)lslave);
-	free(lslave);
-}
-
-int spi_claim_bus(struct spi_slave *slave)
-{
-	/* only one bus and slave so far, always available */
-	return 0;
-}
-
-int spi_xfer(struct spi_slave *slave, unsigned int bitlen,
-	const void *dout, void *din, unsigned long flags)
-{
-	struct lpc32xx_spi_slave *lslave = to_lpc32xx_spi_slave(slave);
-	int bytelen = bitlen >> 3;
-	int idx_out = 0;
-	int idx_in = 0;
-	int start_time;
-
-	start_time = get_timer(0);
-	while ((idx_out < bytelen) || (idx_in < bytelen)) {
-		int status = readl(&lslave->regs->sr);
-		if ((idx_out < bytelen) && (status & SSP_SR_TNF))
-			writel(((u8 *)dout)[idx_out++], &lslave->regs->data);
-		if ((idx_in < bytelen) && (status & SSP_SR_RNE))
-			((u8 *)din)[idx_in++] = readl(&lslave->regs->data);
-		if (get_timer(start_time) >= CONFIG_LPC32XX_SSP_TIMEOUT)
-			return -1;
-	}
-	return 0;
-}
-
-void spi_release_bus(struct spi_slave *slave)
-{
-	/* do nothing */
-}
diff --git a/include/configs/devkit3250.h b/include/configs/devkit3250.h
index 2f8c655b2c..e1f729a854 100644
--- a/include/configs/devkit3250.h
+++ b/include/configs/devkit3250.h
@@ -58,11 +58,6 @@
  */
 #define CONFIG_LPC32XX_GPIO
 
-/*
- * SSP/SPI
- */
-#define CONFIG_LPC32XX_SSP_TIMEOUT	100000
-
 /*
  * Ethernet
  */
diff --git a/include/configs/work_92105.h b/include/configs/work_92105.h
index 67b5e9aa11..9d9a53ef09 100644
--- a/include/configs/work_92105.h
+++ b/include/configs/work_92105.h
@@ -109,11 +109,6 @@
 
 #define CONFIG_LPC32XX_GPIO
 
-/*
- * SSP/SPI/DISPLAY
- */
-
-#define CONFIG_LPC32XX_SSP_TIMEOUT 100000
 /*
  * Environment
  */
diff --git a/scripts/config_whitelist.txt b/scripts/config_whitelist.txt
index 5092c3fb4c..e394e03726 100644
--- a/scripts/config_whitelist.txt
+++ b/scripts/config_whitelist.txt
@@ -1149,7 +1149,6 @@ CONFIG_LPC32XX_NAND_SLC_WDR_CLKS
 CONFIG_LPC32XX_NAND_SLC_WHOLD
 CONFIG_LPC32XX_NAND_SLC_WSETUP
 CONFIG_LPC32XX_NAND_SLC_WWIDTH
-CONFIG_LPC32XX_SSP_TIMEOUT
 CONFIG_LPC_BASE
 CONFIG_LPC_IO_BASE
 CONFIG_LPUART
-- 
2.18.0.321.gffc6fa0e3

[U-Boot] [PATCH] spi: Zap lpc32xx_ssp driver-related code

[Tom Rini]

On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 12:18:59PM +0530, Jagan Teki wrote:

> Dropped
> - lpc32xx_ssp driver
> - CONFIG_LPC32XX_SSP, LPC32XX_SSP_TIMEOUT items
> 
> Dropped due to:
> - no active updates
> - no dm conversion
> - multiple pings for asking dm-conversion
> - no response for dm converted patch
> - driver-model migration expiry
> 
> Cc: Vladimir Zapolskiy <vz@mleia.com>
> Cc: Albert ARIBAUD <albert.aribaud@3adev.fr>
> Signed-off-by: Jagan Teki <jagan@amarulasolutions.com>

For all of the "drop" patches you sent, can you please re-work them to
instead make the relevant option instead depend on BROKEN for now and
we'll drop the code after this next release?  Thanks!

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20190421/d38cb1c6/attachment.sig>

[U-Boot] [PATCH] spi: Zap lpc32xx_ssp driver-related code

[Vladimir Zapolskiy]

Hi Jagan, Tom,

On 04/19/2019 09:48 AM, Jagan Teki wrote:
> Dropped
> - lpc32xx_ssp driver
> - CONFIG_LPC32XX_SSP, LPC32XX_SSP_TIMEOUT items
> 
> Dropped due to:
> - no active updates
> - no dm conversion
> - multiple pings for asking dm-conversion

I really don't want to rush into moaning, however let me ask you to drop
the reason given above as invalid, otherwise please clarify who were
the addressees of these 'multiple pings'.

> - no response for dm converted patch

I believe there was no DM conversion patch for this particular driver,
could it happen that I've missed it?

> - driver-model migration expiry
> 

Definitely this is a valid reason.

The good news is that I don't have any strong objection against
the deletion of the driver.

Why? Recently Quentin Schulz added drivers/spi/pl022_spi.c, and it
provides a support of right the same SPI controller, the new driver
satisfies DM policy.

Quentin, you may take a look at drivers/spi/lpc32xx_ssp.c before (or
after though) its removal for scavenging any goodies.

From my side I'd like to test the new driver on one of my boards,
but unfortunately it may take indefinite time, because it will require
some tinkering. Nevertheless, if any LPC32xx specific changes will be
required, they'll be added to the new Quentin's driver.

--
Best wishes,
Vladimir

[U-Boot] [PATCH] spi: Zap lpc32xx_ssp driver-related code

[Tom Rini]

On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 11:50:22PM +0300, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
> Hi Jagan, Tom,
> 
> On 04/19/2019 09:48 AM, Jagan Teki wrote:
> > Dropped
> > - lpc32xx_ssp driver
> > - CONFIG_LPC32XX_SSP, LPC32XX_SSP_TIMEOUT items
> > 
> > Dropped due to:
> > - no active updates
> > - no dm conversion
> > - multiple pings for asking dm-conversion
> 
> I really don't want to rush into moaning, however let me ask you to drop
> the reason given above as invalid, otherwise please clarify who were
> the addressees of these 'multiple pings'.

Indeed.  Since it was only last month or so that I setup a low-traffic
list for maintainers / custodians for important issues like this, and
lots of previous series have been super bad about Cc'ing the right
people, it's not appropriate to say "no one has spoken up" or similar
lack of reply arguments.  I know there's been previous postings of
"delete this (and all of the other SPI drivers, and all of the other
boards and deletion posts too)" type series but no, they've often not
gone out to the right people.

> > - no response for dm converted patch
> 
> I believe there was no DM conversion patch for this particular driver,
> could it happen that I've missed it?

There was, but all of what I said above about Cc applies too:
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/910751/

> > - driver-model migration expiry
> > 
> 
> Definitely this is a valid reason.
> 
> The good news is that I don't have any strong objection against
> the deletion of the driver.
> 
> Why? Recently Quentin Schulz added drivers/spi/pl022_spi.c, and it
> provides a support of right the same SPI controller, the new driver
> satisfies DM policy.
> 
> Quentin, you may take a look at drivers/spi/lpc32xx_ssp.c before (or
> after though) its removal for scavenging any goodies.
> 
> From my side I'd like to test the new driver on one of my boards,
> but unfortunately it may take indefinite time, because it will require
> some tinkering. Nevertheless, if any LPC32xx specific changes will be
> required, they'll be added to the new Quentin's driver.

In the end, that sounds like an overall improvement to the situation,
even if I'm not happy with how we're getting there.  Sorry about the
frustration (everyone) here.

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20190422/ab1f9ff0/attachment.sig>

[U-Boot] [PATCH] spi: Zap lpc32xx_ssp driver-related code

[Jagan Teki]

On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 2:20 AM Vladimir Zapolskiy <vz@mleia.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Jagan, Tom,
>
> On 04/19/2019 09:48 AM, Jagan Teki wrote:
> > Dropped
> > - lpc32xx_ssp driver
> > - CONFIG_LPC32XX_SSP, LPC32XX_SSP_TIMEOUT items
> >
> > Dropped due to:
> > - no active updates
> > - no dm conversion
> > - multiple pings for asking dm-conversion
>
> I really don't want to rush into moaning, however let me ask you to drop
> the reason given above as invalid, otherwise please clarify who were
> the addressees of these 'multiple pings'.

Here is the number iterations around the ML, this indeed a
notification for dm-conversion.
[1] [2][4][5]

>
> > - no response for dm converted patch
>
> I believe there was no DM conversion patch for this particular driver,
> could it happen that I've missed it?

[3]

[1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1002858/
[2] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1000463/
[3] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/910751/
[4] https://gitlab.incom.co/CM-Shield/u-boot/commit/c4e68d3aa8178f6aa63a79c4f8f459c0e3ed58e8?view=parallel
[5] https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2018-March/322135.html

[U-Boot] [PATCH] spi: Zap lpc32xx_ssp driver-related code

[Jagan Teki]

On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 12:13 AM Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 12:18:59PM +0530, Jagan Teki wrote:
>
> > Dropped
> > - lpc32xx_ssp driver
> > - CONFIG_LPC32XX_SSP, LPC32XX_SSP_TIMEOUT items
> >
> > Dropped due to:
> > - no active updates
> > - no dm conversion
> > - multiple pings for asking dm-conversion
> > - no response for dm converted patch
> > - driver-model migration expiry
> >
> > Cc: Vladimir Zapolskiy <vz@mleia.com>
> > Cc: Albert ARIBAUD <albert.aribaud@3adev.fr>
> > Signed-off-by: Jagan Teki <jagan@amarulasolutions.com>
>
> For all of the "drop" patches you sent, can you please re-work them to
> instead make the relevant option instead depend on BROKEN for now and
> we'll drop the code after this next release?  Thanks!

This was my initial plan before indicating the warnings on Makefile in
previous releases, do we really need this and prolong the migration
plan further?

[U-Boot] [PATCH] spi: Zap lpc32xx_ssp driver-related code

[Tom Rini]

On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 01:11:02PM +0530, Jagan Teki wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 12:13 AM Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 12:18:59PM +0530, Jagan Teki wrote:
> >
> > > Dropped
> > > - lpc32xx_ssp driver
> > > - CONFIG_LPC32XX_SSP, LPC32XX_SSP_TIMEOUT items
> > >
> > > Dropped due to:
> > > - no active updates
> > > - no dm conversion
> > > - multiple pings for asking dm-conversion
> > > - no response for dm converted patch
> > > - driver-model migration expiry
> > >
> > > Cc: Vladimir Zapolskiy <vz@mleia.com>
> > > Cc: Albert ARIBAUD <albert.aribaud@3adev.fr>
> > > Signed-off-by: Jagan Teki <jagan@amarulasolutions.com>
> >
> > For all of the "drop" patches you sent, can you please re-work them to
> > instead make the relevant option instead depend on BROKEN for now and
> > we'll drop the code after this next release?  Thanks!
> 
> This was my initial plan before indicating the warnings on Makefile in
> previous releases, do we really need this and prolong the migration
> plan further?

We absolutely do because as you can see we're still just now having
people see this deadline for the first time because we did a bad job
communicating about it.

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20190424/0fd9e46d/attachment.sig>

[U-Boot] [PATCH] spi: Zap lpc32xx_ssp driver-related code

[Tom Rini]

On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 12:14:07PM +0530, Jagan Teki wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 2:20 AM Vladimir Zapolskiy <vz@mleia.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Jagan, Tom,
> >
> > On 04/19/2019 09:48 AM, Jagan Teki wrote:
> > > Dropped
> > > - lpc32xx_ssp driver
> > > - CONFIG_LPC32XX_SSP, LPC32XX_SSP_TIMEOUT items
> > >
> > > Dropped due to:
> > > - no active updates
> > > - no dm conversion
> > > - multiple pings for asking dm-conversion
> >
> > I really don't want to rush into moaning, however let me ask you to drop
> > the reason given above as invalid, otherwise please clarify who were
> > the addressees of these 'multiple pings'.
> 
> Here is the number iterations around the ML, this indeed a
> notification for dm-conversion.
> [1] [2][4][5]
> 
> >
> > > - no response for dm converted patch
> >
> > I believe there was no DM conversion patch for this particular driver,
> > could it happen that I've missed it?
> 
> [3]
> 
> [1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1002858/
> [2] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1000463/
> [3] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/910751/
> [4] https://gitlab.incom.co/CM-Shield/u-boot/commit/c4e68d3aa8178f6aa63a79c4f8f459c0e3ed58e8?view=parallel
> [5] https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2018-March/322135.html

And to be clear and repeat myself, in all of the above cases while it
did go to the ML it did not to/cc nearly enough (or in some cases I seem
to recall, any) people directly responsible for the platforms in
question.  I should have caught that and spoken up more at the time,
sorry.

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20190424/a2ec02c9/attachment.sig>

[U-Boot] [PATCH] spi: Zap lpc32xx_ssp driver-related code

[Jagan Teki]

On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 5:18 PM Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 12:14:07PM +0530, Jagan Teki wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 2:20 AM Vladimir Zapolskiy <vz@mleia.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Jagan, Tom,
> > >
> > > On 04/19/2019 09:48 AM, Jagan Teki wrote:
> > > > Dropped
> > > > - lpc32xx_ssp driver
> > > > - CONFIG_LPC32XX_SSP, LPC32XX_SSP_TIMEOUT items
> > > >
> > > > Dropped due to:
> > > > - no active updates
> > > > - no dm conversion
> > > > - multiple pings for asking dm-conversion
> > >
> > > I really don't want to rush into moaning, however let me ask you to drop
> > > the reason given above as invalid, otherwise please clarify who were
> > > the addressees of these 'multiple pings'.
> >
> > Here is the number iterations around the ML, this indeed a
> > notification for dm-conversion.
> > [1] [2][4][5]
> >
> > >
> > > > - no response for dm converted patch
> > >
> > > I believe there was no DM conversion patch for this particular driver,
> > > could it happen that I've missed it?
> >
> > [3]
> >
> > [1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1002858/
> > [2] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1000463/
> > [3] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/910751/
> > [4] https://gitlab.incom.co/CM-Shield/u-boot/commit/c4e68d3aa8178f6aa63a79c4f8f459c0e3ed58e8?view=parallel
> > [5] https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2018-March/322135.html
>
> And to be clear and repeat myself, in all of the above cases while it
> did go to the ML it did not to/cc nearly enough (or in some cases I seem
> to recall, any) people directly responsible for the platforms in
> question.  I should have caught that and spoken up more at the time,
> sorry.

Yes, with few driver patches but I mange to add individual board
vendor who effected that driver, but indeed it's very critical job to
include all since many drivers has lot of care takers. and I wouldn't
agree this point is the fact that this kind of Zap patch is 4 or 5th
version not the first time that people would have surprised.

Jagan.

[U-Boot] [PATCH] spi: Zap lpc32xx_ssp driver-related code

[Tom Rini]

On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 11:43:44PM +0530, Jagan Teki wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 5:18 PM Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 12:14:07PM +0530, Jagan Teki wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 2:20 AM Vladimir Zapolskiy <vz@mleia.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Jagan, Tom,
> > > >
> > > > On 04/19/2019 09:48 AM, Jagan Teki wrote:
> > > > > Dropped
> > > > > - lpc32xx_ssp driver
> > > > > - CONFIG_LPC32XX_SSP, LPC32XX_SSP_TIMEOUT items
> > > > >
> > > > > Dropped due to:
> > > > > - no active updates
> > > > > - no dm conversion
> > > > > - multiple pings for asking dm-conversion
> > > >
> > > > I really don't want to rush into moaning, however let me ask you to drop
> > > > the reason given above as invalid, otherwise please clarify who were
> > > > the addressees of these 'multiple pings'.
> > >
> > > Here is the number iterations around the ML, this indeed a
> > > notification for dm-conversion.
> > > [1] [2][4][5]
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > - no response for dm converted patch
> > > >
> > > > I believe there was no DM conversion patch for this particular driver,
> > > > could it happen that I've missed it?
> > >
> > > [3]
> > >
> > > [1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1002858/
> > > [2] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1000463/
> > > [3] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/910751/
> > > [4] https://gitlab.incom.co/CM-Shield/u-boot/commit/c4e68d3aa8178f6aa63a79c4f8f459c0e3ed58e8?view=parallel
> > > [5] https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2018-March/322135.html
> >
> > And to be clear and repeat myself, in all of the above cases while it
> > did go to the ML it did not to/cc nearly enough (or in some cases I seem
> > to recall, any) people directly responsible for the platforms in
> > question.  I should have caught that and spoken up more at the time,
> > sorry.
> 
> Yes, with few driver patches but I mange to add individual board
> vendor who effected that driver, but indeed it's very critical job to
> include all since many drivers has lot of care takers. and I wouldn't
> agree this point is the fact that this kind of Zap patch is 4 or 5th
> version not the first time that people would have surprised.

The problem is that Vladimir is one of the people that should have seen
any of the previous instances, but didn't, and I'm sure this isn't the
only instance.  So removal of unconverted drivers needs to be slow.

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20190425/db72f580/attachment.sig>

[U-Boot] [PATCH] spi: Zap lpc32xx_ssp driver-related code

[Jagan Teki]

On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 11:47 PM Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 11:43:44PM +0530, Jagan Teki wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 5:18 PM Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 12:14:07PM +0530, Jagan Teki wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 2:20 AM Vladimir Zapolskiy <vz@mleia.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Jagan, Tom,
> > > > >
> > > > > On 04/19/2019 09:48 AM, Jagan Teki wrote:
> > > > > > Dropped
> > > > > > - lpc32xx_ssp driver
> > > > > > - CONFIG_LPC32XX_SSP, LPC32XX_SSP_TIMEOUT items
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dropped due to:
> > > > > > - no active updates
> > > > > > - no dm conversion
> > > > > > - multiple pings for asking dm-conversion
> > > > >
> > > > > I really don't want to rush into moaning, however let me ask you to drop
> > > > > the reason given above as invalid, otherwise please clarify who were
> > > > > the addressees of these 'multiple pings'.
> > > >
> > > > Here is the number iterations around the ML, this indeed a
> > > > notification for dm-conversion.
> > > > [1] [2][4][5]
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > - no response for dm converted patch
> > > > >
> > > > > I believe there was no DM conversion patch for this particular driver,
> > > > > could it happen that I've missed it?
> > > >
> > > > [3]
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1002858/
> > > > [2] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1000463/
> > > > [3] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/910751/
> > > > [4] https://gitlab.incom.co/CM-Shield/u-boot/commit/c4e68d3aa8178f6aa63a79c4f8f459c0e3ed58e8?view=parallel
> > > > [5] https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2018-March/322135.html
> > >
> > > And to be clear and repeat myself, in all of the above cases while it
> > > did go to the ML it did not to/cc nearly enough (or in some cases I seem
> > > to recall, any) people directly responsible for the platforms in
> > > question.  I should have caught that and spoken up more at the time,
> > > sorry.
> >
> > Yes, with few driver patches but I mange to add individual board
> > vendor who effected that driver, but indeed it's very critical job to
> > include all since many drivers has lot of care takers. and I wouldn't
> > agree this point is the fact that this kind of Zap patch is 4 or 5th
> > version not the first time that people would have surprised.
>
> The problem is that Vladimir is one of the people that should have seen
> any of the previous instances, but didn't, and I'm sure this isn't the
> only instance.  So removal of unconverted drivers needs to be slow.

Okay, here is my next plan. will move all these zap driver configs to
BROKEN and give a warning during build that it would remove in next
version if dm conversion not done. my idea is to make build failure
with broken configs enablement, but that indeed trigger travis
failure.

[U-Boot] [PATCH] spi: Zap lpc32xx_ssp driver-related code

[Simon Goldschmidt]

On 22.04.19 23:00, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 11:50:22PM +0300, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
>> Hi Jagan, Tom,
>>
>> On 04/19/2019 09:48 AM, Jagan Teki wrote:
>>> Dropped
>>> - lpc32xx_ssp driver
>>> - CONFIG_LPC32XX_SSP, LPC32XX_SSP_TIMEOUT items
>>>
>>> Dropped due to:
>>> - no active updates
>>> - no dm conversion
>>> - multiple pings for asking dm-conversion
>>
>> I really don't want to rush into moaning, however let me ask you to drop
>> the reason given above as invalid, otherwise please clarify who were
>> the addressees of these 'multiple pings'.
> 
> Indeed.  Since it was only last month or so that I setup a low-traffic
> list for maintainers / custodians for important issues like this, [..]

Wait, which list are you talking about? Should I be monitoring anything 
else than this one?

Regards,
Simon

[U-Boot] [PATCH] spi: Zap lpc32xx_ssp driver-related code

[Tom Rini]

On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 10:08:34PM +0200, Simon Goldschmidt wrote:
> 
> 
> On 22.04.19 23:00, Tom Rini wrote:
> >On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 11:50:22PM +0300, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
> >>Hi Jagan, Tom,
> >>
> >>On 04/19/2019 09:48 AM, Jagan Teki wrote:
> >>>Dropped
> >>>- lpc32xx_ssp driver
> >>>- CONFIG_LPC32XX_SSP, LPC32XX_SSP_TIMEOUT items
> >>>
> >>>Dropped due to:
> >>>- no active updates
> >>>- no dm conversion
> >>>- multiple pings for asking dm-conversion
> >>
> >>I really don't want to rush into moaning, however let me ask you to drop
> >>the reason given above as invalid, otherwise please clarify who were
> >>the addressees of these 'multiple pings'.
> >
> >Indeed.  Since it was only last month or so that I setup a low-traffic
> >list for maintainers / custodians for important issues like this, [..]
> 
> Wait, which list are you talking about? Should I be monitoring anything else
> than this one?

Ah, OK, so a new thing for my own mental checklist (which I ought to
write down), there's now u-boot-custodians and u-boot-maintainers AT
lists.denx.de, which are low volume custodian / maintainers only lists
(they are public) to try and help avoid these "Hey, I maintain a board
and just now found out I need to convert things for the next
release?!?!?" problems, and similar.

> 
> Regards,
> Simon

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20190428/4d6521bc/attachment.sig>

[U-Boot] [PATCH] spi: Zap lpc32xx_ssp driver-related code

[Simon Goldschmidt]

On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 2:22 AM Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 10:08:34PM +0200, Simon Goldschmidt wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 22.04.19 23:00, Tom Rini wrote:
> > >On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 11:50:22PM +0300, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
> > >>Hi Jagan, Tom,
> > >>
> > >>On 04/19/2019 09:48 AM, Jagan Teki wrote:
> > >>>Dropped
> > >>>- lpc32xx_ssp driver
> > >>>- CONFIG_LPC32XX_SSP, LPC32XX_SSP_TIMEOUT items
> > >>>
> > >>>Dropped due to:
> > >>>- no active updates
> > >>>- no dm conversion
> > >>>- multiple pings for asking dm-conversion
> > >>
> > >>I really don't want to rush into moaning, however let me ask you to drop
> > >>the reason given above as invalid, otherwise please clarify who were
> > >>the addressees of these 'multiple pings'.
> > >
> > >Indeed.  Since it was only last month or so that I setup a low-traffic
> > >list for maintainers / custodians for important issues like this, [..]
> >
> > Wait, which list are you talking about? Should I be monitoring anything else
> > than this one?
>
> Ah, OK, so a new thing for my own mental checklist (which I ought to
> write down), there's now u-boot-custodians and u-boot-maintainers AT
> lists.denx.de, which are low volume custodian / maintainers only lists
> (they are public) to try and help avoid these "Hey, I maintain a board
> and just now found out I need to convert things for the next
> release?!?!?" problems, and similar.

Right, I remember reading about the plan to have such lists here, but
I failed to find them by searching the docs in git or searching the web.

And if I fail to find them, it could be me, but just maybe I'm not the only
maintainer not finding them ;-)

Regards,
Simon

[U-Boot] [PATCH] spi: Zap lpc32xx_ssp driver-related code

[Tom Rini]

On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 10:22:07AM +0200, Simon Goldschmidt wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 2:22 AM Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 10:08:34PM +0200, Simon Goldschmidt wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 22.04.19 23:00, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > >On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 11:50:22PM +0300, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
> > > >>Hi Jagan, Tom,
> > > >>
> > > >>On 04/19/2019 09:48 AM, Jagan Teki wrote:
> > > >>>Dropped
> > > >>>- lpc32xx_ssp driver
> > > >>>- CONFIG_LPC32XX_SSP, LPC32XX_SSP_TIMEOUT items
> > > >>>
> > > >>>Dropped due to:
> > > >>>- no active updates
> > > >>>- no dm conversion
> > > >>>- multiple pings for asking dm-conversion
> > > >>
> > > >>I really don't want to rush into moaning, however let me ask you to drop
> > > >>the reason given above as invalid, otherwise please clarify who were
> > > >>the addressees of these 'multiple pings'.
> > > >
> > > >Indeed.  Since it was only last month or so that I setup a low-traffic
> > > >list for maintainers / custodians for important issues like this, [..]
> > >
> > > Wait, which list are you talking about? Should I be monitoring anything else
> > > than this one?
> >
> > Ah, OK, so a new thing for my own mental checklist (which I ought to
> > write down), there's now u-boot-custodians and u-boot-maintainers AT
> > lists.denx.de, which are low volume custodian / maintainers only lists
> > (they are public) to try and help avoid these "Hey, I maintain a board
> > and just now found out I need to convert things for the next
> > release?!?!?" problems, and similar.
> 
> Right, I remember reading about the plan to have such lists here, but
> I failed to find them by searching the docs in git or searching the web.
> 
> And if I fail to find them, it could be me, but just maybe I'm not the only
> maintainer not finding them ;-)

I emailed everyone that's listed in MAINTAINERS when the lists opened.
I think this in part means there may be a board entry or two missing
your email? :)

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20190429/630ffd66/attachment.sig>

[U-Boot] [PATCH] spi: Zap lpc32xx_ssp driver-related code

[Simon Goldschmidt]

Am 29.04.2019 um 19:57 schrieb Tom Rini:
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 10:22:07AM +0200, Simon Goldschmidt wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 2:22 AM Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 10:08:34PM +0200, Simon Goldschmidt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 22.04.19 23:00, Tom Rini wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 11:50:22PM +0300, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Jagan, Tom,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 04/19/2019 09:48 AM, Jagan Teki wrote:
>>>>>>> Dropped
>>>>>>> - lpc32xx_ssp driver
>>>>>>> - CONFIG_LPC32XX_SSP, LPC32XX_SSP_TIMEOUT items
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dropped due to:
>>>>>>> - no active updates
>>>>>>> - no dm conversion
>>>>>>> - multiple pings for asking dm-conversion
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I really don't want to rush into moaning, however let me ask you to drop
>>>>>> the reason given above as invalid, otherwise please clarify who were
>>>>>> the addressees of these 'multiple pings'.
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed.  Since it was only last month or so that I setup a low-traffic
>>>>> list for maintainers / custodians for important issues like this, [..]
>>>>
>>>> Wait, which list are you talking about? Should I be monitoring anything else
>>>> than this one?
>>>
>>> Ah, OK, so a new thing for my own mental checklist (which I ought to
>>> write down), there's now u-boot-custodians and u-boot-maintainers AT
>>> lists.denx.de, which are low volume custodian / maintainers only lists
>>> (they are public) to try and help avoid these "Hey, I maintain a board
>>> and just now found out I need to convert things for the next
>>> release?!?!?" problems, and similar.
>>
>> Right, I remember reading about the plan to have such lists here, but
>> I failed to find them by searching the docs in git or searching the web.
>>
>> And if I fail to find them, it could be me, but just maybe I'm not the only
>> maintainer not finding them ;-)
> 
> I emailed everyone that's listed in MAINTAINERS when the lists opened.
> I think this in part means there may be a board entry or two missing
> your email? :)

No, I'm not  a maintainer of officially supported boards. Unfortunately, 
we're having non-mainlined private boards only. And my entry as socfpga 
maintainer/co-custodioan has just been aded now ;-)

However, given the many companies out there using embedded Linux 
nowadays, I expect many such boards exist. Any while I understand we 
don't want to go into too much trouble of supporting such boards, I do 
think maintainers of such boards should be made aware of that list, too.

I guess we could note it in the toplevel README file, but finding it on 
denx.de would certainly help, too.

Regards,
Simon