Re: [RFC PATCH 00/12] Ion cleanup in preparation for moving out of staging

[Laura Abbott]

On 03/03/2017 05:29 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 02-03-17 13:44:32, Laura Abbott wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> There's been some recent discussions[1] about Ion-like frameworks. There's
>> apparently interest in just keeping Ion since it works reasonablly well.
>> This series does what should be the final clean ups for it to possibly be
>> moved out of staging.
>>
>> This includes the following:
>> - Some general clean up and removal of features that never got a lot of use
>>   as far as I can tell.
>> - Fixing up the caching. This is the series I proposed back in December[2]
>>   but never heard any feedback on. It will certainly break existing
>>   applications that rely on the implicit caching. I'd rather make an effort
>>   to move to a model that isn't going directly against the establishement
>>   though.
>> - Fixing up the platform support. The devicetree approach was never well
>>   recieved by DT maintainers. The proposal here is to think of Ion less as
>>   specifying requirements and more of a framework for exposing memory to
>>   userspace.
>> - CMA allocations now happen without the need of a dummy device structure.
>>   This fixes a bunch of the reasons why I attempted to add devicetree
>>   support before.
>>
>> I've had problems getting feedback in the past so if I don't hear any major
>> objections I'm going to send out with the RFC dropped to be picked up.
>> The only reason there isn't a patch to come out of staging is to discuss any
>> other changes to the ABI people might want. Once this comes out of staging,
>> I really don't want to mess with the ABI.
> 
> Could you recapitulate concerns preventing the code being merged
> normally rather than through the staging tree and how they were
> addressed?
> 

Sorry, I'm really not understanding your question here, can you
clarify?

Thanks,
Laura