Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1360586 > unrolled thread

UFS V11 patch-set

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

Contents

  UFS V11 patch-set Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@synopsys.com> - 2016-03-18 13:50 +0100
    UFS V11 patch-set Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@synopsys.com> - 2016-03-18 14:00 +0100
      Re: UFS V11 patch-set Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2016-03-18 16:00 +0100
        Re: UFS V11 patch-set Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@synopsys.com> - 2016-03-18 16:00 +0100
          Re: UFS V11 patch-set Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@synopsys.com> - 2016-03-21 11:30 +0100
            Re: UFS V11 patch-set Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@synopsys.com> - 2016-03-22 11:40 +0100
              Re: UFS V11 patch-set Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@synopsys.com> - 2016-03-22 12:10 +0100
                Re: UFS V11 patch-set Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> - 2016-03-22 16:40 +0100
                  Re: UFS V11 patch-set Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@synopsys.com> - 2016-03-22 16:50 +0100
                  Re: UFS V11 patch-set Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> - 2016-03-22 16:50 +0100
                    Re: UFS V11 patch-set Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@synopsys.com> - 2016-03-22 17:00 +0100
              Re: UFS V11 patch-set Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> - 2016-03-22 12:10 +0100
          Re: UFS V11 patch-set "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com> - 2016-03-23 22:20 +0100
            Re: UFS V11 patch-set Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@synopsys.com> - 2016-03-24 11:20 +0100

#1360586 — UFS V11 patch-set

Hi!

Could you please check the following patch-set in order to evaluate if it is
ready for v4.6?

[PATCH v11 0/6] add support for DWC UFS Controller
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/2396797?#2396797

[PATCH v11 1/6] fixed typo in ufshcd-pltfrm
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/2396790?#2396790

[PATCH v11 2/6] added UFS 2.0 capabilities
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/2396791?#2396791

[PATCH v11 3/6] added support for DesignWare Controller
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/2396795?#2396795

[PATCH v11 4/6] added support for Synopsys G210 Test Chip
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/2396792?#2396792

[PATCH v11 5/6] add TC G210 platform driver
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/2396794?#2396794

[PATCH v11 6/6] add-TC-G210-pci-driver
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/2396793?#2396793

Thank you very much!

Regards,
Joao

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1360596

Hi!

Could you please check the following patch-set in order to evaluate if it is
ready for v4.6?

[PATCH v11 0/6] add support for DWC UFS Controller
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/2396797?#2396797

[PATCH v11 1/6] fixed typo in ufshcd-pltfrm
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/2396790?#2396790

[PATCH v11 2/6] added UFS 2.0 capabilities
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/2396791?#2396791

[PATCH v11 3/6] added support for DesignWare Controller
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/2396795?#2396795

[PATCH v11 4/6] added support for Synopsys G210 Test Chip
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/2396792?#2396792

[PATCH v11 5/6] add TC G210 platform driver
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/2396794?#2396794

[PATCH v11 6/6] add-TC-G210-pci-driver
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/2396793?#2396793

Thank you very much!

Regards,
Joao

PS: Changed JBottomley e-mail address.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1360712

On Friday 18 March 2016 12:52:13 Joao Pinto wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> Could you please check the following patch-set in order to evaluate if it is
> ready for v4.6?
> 

I think the code is ok now, but the timing apparently didn't work for 4.6.
I'd suggest you resend as soon as 4.6-rc1 is out so it can get merged into 4.7.

	Arnd

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1360715

Hi!

On 3/18/2016 2:49 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 18 March 2016 12:52:13 Joao Pinto wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> Could you please check the following patch-set in order to evaluate if it is
>> ready for v4.6?
>>
> 
> I think the code is ok now, but the timing apparently didn't work for 4.6.
> I'd suggest you resend as soon as 4.6-rc1 is out so it can get merged into 4.7.

Isn't it possible to be merged into a ufs-dwc branch in the SCSI Git tree that
could be pulled later, like Bjorn did in the PCIe RC?

> 
> 	Arnd
> 

Joao

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1361678

Hi Rafael, James, Mark and Christoph,

I check in the scsi git tree that you were the last to merge code to the ufs
repository.

Is it possible to merge this code into a ufs-dwc branch in SCSI repository, in
order to be merged in v4.6-rc1?

[PATCH v11 0/6] add support for DWC UFS Controller
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/2396797?#2396797

[PATCH v11 1/6] fixed typo in ufshcd-pltfrm
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/2396790?#2396790

[PATCH v11 2/6] added UFS 2.0 capabilities
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/2396791?#2396791

[PATCH v11 3/6] added support for DesignWare Controller
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/2396795?#2396795

[PATCH v11 4/6] added support for Synopsys G210 Test Chip
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/2396792?#2396792

[PATCH v11 5/6] add TC G210 platform driver
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/2396794?#2396794

[PATCH v11 6/6] add-TC-G210-pci-driver
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/2396793?#2396793

On 3/18/2016 2:53 PM, Joao Pinto wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> On 3/18/2016 2:49 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Friday 18 March 2016 12:52:13 Joao Pinto wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> Could you please check the following patch-set in order to evaluate if it is
>>> ready for v4.6?
>>>
>>
>> I think the code is ok now, but the timing apparently didn't work for 4.6.
>> I'd suggest you resend as soon as 4.6-rc1 is out so it can get merged into 4.7.
> 
> 
>>
>> 	Arnd

Thanks,

Joao

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1362466

Hi,

The following patch-set was approved by Arnd Bergmann and Rob Herring and I
would appreciate that someone from SCSI / UFS gave a final checkout in order to
evaluate the possibility of still merging it to v4.6 or putting it in a branch
in SCSI to be merged to v4.7.

[PATCH v11 0/6] add support for DWC UFS Controller
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/2396797?#2396797

[PATCH v11 1/6] fixed typo in ufshcd-pltfrm
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/2396790?#2396790

[PATCH v11 2/6] added UFS 2.0 capabilities
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/2396791?#2396791

[PATCH v11 3/6] added support for DesignWare Controller
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/2396795?#2396795

[PATCH v11 4/6] added support for Synopsys G210 Test Chip
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/2396792?#2396792

[PATCH v11 5/6] add TC G210 platform driver
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/2396794?#2396794

[PATCH v11 6/6] add-TC-G210-pci-driver
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/2396793?#2396793


On 3/21/2016 10:28 AM, Joao Pinto wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> On 3/18/2016 2:49 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> On Friday 18 March 2016 12:52:13 Joao Pinto wrote:
>>>> Hi!
>>>>
>>>> Could you please check the following patch-set in order to evaluate if it is
>>>> ready for v4.6?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think the code is ok now, but the timing apparently didn't work for 4.6.
>>> I'd suggest you resend as soon as 4.6-rc1 is out so it can get merged into 4.7.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 	Arnd
>

Thanks,

Joao

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1362558

Hi Mark,

I have no intend to break the rules. I am just trying to communicate with UFS
maintainers that so far gave me no response. Merging in v4.7 is fine, but I
would like that UFS maintainers give me some feedback about the next steps, but
so far didn't have luck.

Thanks,
Joao


On 3/22/2016 10:58 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:31:28AM +0000, Joao Pinto wrote:
> 
>> The following patch-set was approved by Arnd Bergmann and Rob Herring and I
>> would appreciate that someone from SCSI / UFS gave a final checkout in order to
>> evaluate the possibility of still merging it to v4.6 or putting it in a branch
>> in SCSI to be merged to v4.7.
> 
> I've no idea why you're sending me this stuff but please stop - you sent
> a similar mail yesterday and I see there were a bunch of similar mails
> before you started CCing me into the thread - but sending daily top
> posted content free pings is just going to annoy people (or at least
> it's annoying me) and sending them to random other maintainers isn't
> likely to improve things.  This is especially the case when we're more
> than half way through the merge window and the code apparently isn't
> even in -next yet.  
> 
> Please stop this and follow Arnd's advice (which you quoted from the
> message you're replying to):
> 
>>>> On 3/18/2016 2:49 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> 
>>>>> I think the code is ok now, but the timing apparently didn't work for 4.6.
>>>>> I'd suggest you resend as soon as 4.6-rc1 is out so it can get merged into 4.7.
> 
> If there's some reason to break the process you need to articulate what
> it is and give people a chance to respond but that's *very* rare, unless
> there is an unusually strong reason people are going to use the normal
> development workflow.
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1362817

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:04:25AM +0000, Joao Pinto wrote:

Please don't top post, reply in line with needed context.  This allows
readers to readily follow the flow of conversation and understand what
you are talking about and also helps ensure that everything in the
discussion is being addressed.

> I have no intend to break the rules. I am just trying to communicate with UFS
> maintainers that so far gave me no response. Merging in v4.7 is fine, but I
> would like that UFS maintainers give me some feedback about the next steps, but
> so far didn't have luck.

Like I say the next steps are those Arnd gave you: repost after -rc1.
Then give people at least a week or so to respond, people do get busy
and other people are also sending patches.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1362820

On 3/22/2016 3:31 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:04:25AM +0000, Joao Pinto wrote:
> 
> Please don't top post, reply in line with needed context.  This allows
> readers to readily follow the flow of conversation and understand what
> you are talking about and also helps ensure that everything in the
> discussion is being addressed.
> 
>> I have no intend to break the rules. I am just trying to communicate with UFS
>> maintainers that so far gave me no response. Merging in v4.7 is fine, but I
>> would like that UFS maintainers give me some feedback about the next steps, but
>> so far didn't have luck.
> 
> Like I say the next steps are those Arnd gave you: repost after -rc1.
> Then give people at least a week or so to respond, people do get busy
> and other people are also sending patches.
> 

Understood, I will repost this patch set after -rc1.
I suggest that the UFS maintenance should be revised because the e-mail of
ufshcd.c authors are no longer valid and the current maintainer (Vinayak
Holikatti) is having a career shift (has you can check in LinkedIn) and probably
is not available at the moment to do patch reviews.

Thanks,
Joao

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1362821

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 03:31:25PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:04:25AM +0000, Joao Pinto wrote:

> > I have no intend to break the rules. I am just trying to communicate with UFS
> > maintainers that so far gave me no response. Merging in v4.7 is fine, but I
> > would like that UFS maintainers give me some feedback about the next steps, but
> > so far didn't have luck.

> Like I say the next steps are those Arnd gave you: repost after -rc1.
> Then give people at least a week or so to respond, people do get busy
> and other people are also sending patches.

I'd also suggest checking James Bottomley's e-mail address, the one
you're using here bounces and isn't the one advertised in MAINTAINERS
(you should check that for other maintainers too).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1362825

On 3/22/2016 3:43 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 03:31:25PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:04:25AM +0000, Joao Pinto wrote:
> 
>>> I have no intend to break the rules. I am just trying to communicate with UFS
>>> maintainers that so far gave me no response. Merging in v4.7 is fine, but I
>>> would like that UFS maintainers give me some feedback about the next steps, but
>>> so far didn't have luck.
> 
>> Like I say the next steps are those Arnd gave you: repost after -rc1.
>> Then give people at least a week or so to respond, people do get busy
>> and other people are also sending patches.
> 
> I'd also suggest checking James Bottomley's e-mail address, the one
> you're using here bounces and isn't the one advertised in MAINTAINERS
> (you should check that for other maintainers too).
> 

I took James's email from commit logs in UFS. Thanks for the info.

Joao

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1362577

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:31:28AM +0000, Joao Pinto wrote:

> The following patch-set was approved by Arnd Bergmann and Rob Herring and I
> would appreciate that someone from SCSI / UFS gave a final checkout in order to
> evaluate the possibility of still merging it to v4.6 or putting it in a branch
> in SCSI to be merged to v4.7.

I've no idea why you're sending me this stuff but please stop - you sent
a similar mail yesterday and I see there were a bunch of similar mails
before you started CCing me into the thread - but sending daily top
posted content free pings is just going to annoy people (or at least
it's annoying me) and sending them to random other maintainers isn't
likely to improve things.  This is especially the case when we're more
than half way through the merge window and the code apparently isn't
even in -next yet.  

Please stop this and follow Arnd's advice (which you quoted from the
message you're replying to):

> >> On 3/18/2016 2:49 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

> >>> I think the code is ok now, but the timing apparently didn't work for 4.6.
> >>> I'd suggest you resend as soon as 4.6-rc1 is out so it can get merged into 4.7.

If there's some reason to break the process you need to articulate what
it is and give people a chance to respond but that's *very* rare, unless
there is an unusually strong reason people are going to use the normal
development workflow.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1363704

>>>>> "Joao" == Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@synopsys.com> writes:

Joao,

Joao> Isn't it possible to be merged into a ufs-dwc branch in the SCSI
Joao> Git tree that could be pulled later, like Bjorn did in the PCIe
Joao> RC?

I just started 4.7/scsi-queue so now is a good time to resubmit.

Thanks!

-- 
Martin K. Petersen	Oracle Linux Engineering

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1364041

On 3/23/2016 9:16 PM, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
>>>>>> "Joao" == Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@synopsys.com> writes:
> 
> Joao,
> 
> Joao> Isn't it possible to be merged into a ufs-dwc branch in the SCSI
> Joao> Git tree that could be pulled later, like Bjorn did in the PCIe
> Joao> RC?
> 
> I just started 4.7/scsi-queue so now is a good time to resubmit.
> 
> Thanks!
> 

Hi Martin!
Thanks, I will do that in a minute.

Joao

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web