Re: [GIT PULL] Introduce builtin_platform_driver for non modules

[Paul Gortmaker]

[Re: [GIT PULL] Introduce builtin_platform_driver for non modules] On 30/06/2015 (Tue 18:24) Greg KH wrote:

[...]

> > 
> > The following changes since commit 0f57d86787d8b1076ea8f9cbdddda2a46d534a27:
> > 
> >   Linux 4.1-rc8 (2015-06-14 15:51:10 -1000)
> > 
> > are available in the git repository at:
> > 
> >   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/paulg/linux.git tags/module-builtin_driver-v4.1-rc8
> > 
> > for you to fetch changes up to 77459a0feca4ae8757a905fd1791f039479e8e1e:
> > 
> >   drivers/clk: convert sunxi/clk-mod0.c to use builtin_platform_driver (2015-06-16 14:12:39 -0400)
> 
> Was this ever in linux-next?

It was added to linux-next a month ago, and all the commits and their
baseline have been unchanged for the last two weeks (the date Stephen
indicated) as that was when the last Acks etc stopped trickling in.

I've also been proactively monitoring linux-next looking for any merge
issues, which is why I sent you the (now mainline) commits fc368ea1ea00c
and 5a6a7cd05c039 -- in both commits I mentioned how we'd like to change
to use this very infrastructure here, once it is present in tree.

> I saw you post this once, don't recall any real discussion about it. 

I thought the lack of discussion wasn't surprising, given that it was a
mundane and trivial extension of the modular ones to a non-modular use
case, and the ugly alternative is to let everyone open code their own :(

That said, it was posted with a sensible Cc list and it also did get
wider opportunity for possible discussion if needed, thanks to LWN:
	https://lwn.net/Articles/643854/

The only other thread of discussion I can think of was where another
subsystem maintainer looped me into the review of a new driver, because
they were looking forward to having this in tree, due to the additional
clarity it would add between modular and non modular code:
	https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20150620180435.GG16386@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

> Ideally some subsystem people would ack it...

Yes a good many of the deployment patches themselves are Ack'd.  For the
core macro introduction itself, you were Cc'd on it [and the 0/7 intro].

Given my above mentioned commits that you'd read and merged that
mentioned this, I didn't want to burn karma nagging you for an explicit
ack for this one basic commit itself, given how busy you are with
stable, staging, etc.  But I did explicitly put you on the Cc for this
pull figuring it would be an opportunity to keep you in the loop and
provide a last chance opportunity for a "No, don't do this because..."

If I have to burn karma nagging you about something, I'd rather it be
something more important, like adding this (unrelated) clk_add_alias fix
to staging -- since its absence has been breaking powerpc, s390, parisc,
cris, ... etc. builds in linux-next for quite some time now.  :)

	https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/6/25/365

Thanks,
Paul.
--

> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/