Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] vchiq: Patch to separate platform and cdev code

From: Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin98@gmail.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: nsaenz@kernel.org, stefan.wahren@i2se.com,
	dan.carpenter@oracle.com, phil@raspberrypi.com,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-staging@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] vchiq: Patch to separate platform and cdev code
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 18:29:00 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210723125900.GA279903@ojas> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YPqh0SHa8n3BugnB@kroah.com>

On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 01:02:41PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 09:50:48PM +0530, Ojaswin Mujoo wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > This patchset adderesses the TODO item number 10 specified at:
> > 
> >     drivers/staging/vc04-services/interface/TODO
> > 
> > For reference, the task is:
> > 
> >     10) Reorganize file structure: Move char driver to it's own file and join
> >     both platform files
> > 
> >     The cdev is defined alongside with the platform code in vchiq_arm.c. It
> >     would be nice to completely decouple it from the actual core code. For
> >     instance to be able to use bcm2835-audio without having /dev/vchiq created.
> >     One could argue it's better for security reasons or general cleanliness. It
> >     could even be interesting to create two different kernel modules, something
> >     the likes of vchiq-core.ko and vchiq-dev.ko. This would also ease the
> >     upstreaming process.
> > 
> > A summary of the patches is as follows:
> > 
> > - Patch 1: Move cdev init code into a function
> > - Patch 2: Shift some devlarations from vchiq_arm.c to vchiq_arm.h for
> >            sharing
> > - Patch 3: Move vchiq cdev init code from vchiq_arm.c into vchiq_dev.c
> > - Patch 4: Decouple cdev code by defining a Kconfig entry to allow
> >            optional compilation of it.
> > - Patch 5: Merge code in vchiq_2835_arm.c to vchiq_arm.c
> > 
> > Changes since v3 [2]:
> > 
> > * In Patch 5, replace forward declarations of some of the functions with
> >   function definition 
> 
> You dropped the reviews of others, so now I need to wait for them again
> :(
> 
Hello Greg,

Apologies for that, I was under the impression that a new version
needed a separate review :(

If its okay, I can alternately resubmit this (as v5?) with Stefan's
Reviewed-By tags on unchanged commits intact. Let me know if that's okay
or if its better to wait out.

Thank you!
Ojaswin

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel