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

Groups > linux.kernel > #1493031 > unrolled thread

Re: [tip:x86/platform] x86/platform/mellanox: Introduce support for Mellanox systems platform

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [tip:x86/platform] x86/platform/mellanox: Introduce support for  Mellanox systems platform Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org> - 2016-09-29 01:30 +0200
    Re: [tip:x86/platform] x86/platform/mellanox: Introduce support for  Mellanox systems platform Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2016-09-29 15:40 +0200
      Re: [tip:x86/platform] x86/platform/mellanox: Introduce support for  Mellanox systems platform Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org> - 2016-09-30 02:10 +0200

#1493031 — Re: [tip:x86/platform] x86/platform/mellanox: Introduce support for Mellanox systems platform

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 01:18:52PM -0700, tip-bot for Vadim Pasternak wrote:
> Commit-ID:  58cbbee2391ce3876e6eee80a4f2a7f025859c52
> Gitweb:     http://git.kernel.org/tip/58cbbee2391ce3876e6eee80a4f2a7f025859c52
> Author:     Vadim Pasternak <vadimp@mellanox.com>
> AuthorDate: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 21:13:42 +0000
> Committer:  Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> CommitDate: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 22:13:10 +0200
> 
> x86/platform/mellanox: Introduce support for Mellanox systems platform
> 
> Enable system support for the Mellanox Technologies platform, which
> provides support for the next Mellanox basic systems: "msx6710",
> "msx6720", "msb7700", "msn2700", "msx1410", "msn2410", "msb7800",
> "msn2740", "msn2100" and also various number of derivative systems from
> the above basic types.
> 
> The Kconfig controlling compilation of this code is: MLX_PLATFORM
> 
> Signed-off-by: Vadim Pasternak <vadimp@mellanox.com>
> Cc: jiri@resnulli.us
> Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org
> Cc: platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: geert@linux-m68k.org
> Cc: linux@roeck-us.net
> Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org
> Cc: mchehab@kernel.org
> Cc: davem@davemloft.net
> Cc: kvalo@codeaurora.org
> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1474578822-33805-1-git-send-email-vadimp@mellanox.com
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> 
> ---
>  MAINTAINERS                               |   6 +
>  arch/x86/Kconfig                          |  12 ++
>  arch/x86/platform/Makefile                |   1 +
>  arch/x86/platform/mellanox/Makefile       |   1 +
>  arch/x86/platform/mellanox/mlx-platform.c | 266 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  5 files changed, 286 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> index a0ce40f..2adc6ef 100644
> --- a/MAINTAINERS
> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> @@ -7668,6 +7668,12 @@ W:	http://www.mellanox.com
>  Q:	http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/netdev/list/
>  F:	drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlxsw/
>  
> +MELLANOX PLATFORM DRIVER
> +M:      Vadim Pasternak <vadimp@mellanox.com>
> +L:      platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org
> +S:      Supported
> +F:      arch/x86/platform/mellanox/mlx-platform.c

This through me as I was trying to reconcile this series with another mellanox
platform driver from Vadim to the drivers/platform/x86 tree as this one also
came to the platform-driver-x86 mailing list.

There are no other entries in MAINTAINERS that use this list without files under
drivers/platform/x86.

Thomas, HPA, Ingo, do you also use the platform-driver-x86 mailing list for
arch/x86/platform? I had assumed this was only for drivers/platform/x86.

I can definitely understand how contributors might get confused.... I think I
may have confused myself actually :-)

My two cents too late, this driver seems like it would better placed in
drivers/platform/x86 as it isn't architectural (or SoC specific) in the same way
most of the others in arch/x86/platform are, but instead is more akin to the
end-product laptop drivers and such in drivers/platform/x86 which build platform
data from DMI strings, ACPI HIDs, etc.

If this isn't the right distinction between the two similarly named trees ...
how would you like to distinguish them? I'll volunteer to get that documented
someplace convenient to make it easier to decide what goes where.

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1493466

On Wed, 28 Sep 2016, Darren Hart wrote:
> This through me as I was trying to reconcile this series with another mellanox
> platform driver from Vadim to the drivers/platform/x86 tree as this one also
> came to the platform-driver-x86 mailing list.
> 
> There are no other entries in MAINTAINERS that use this list without files under
> drivers/platform/x86.
> 
> Thomas, HPA, Ingo, do you also use the platform-driver-x86 mailing list for
> arch/x86/platform? I had assumed this was only for drivers/platform/x86.

No. This came in via LKML.
 
> I can definitely understand how contributors might get confused.... I think I
> may have confused myself actually :-)
> 
> My two cents too late, this driver seems like it would better placed in
> drivers/platform/x86 as it isn't architectural (or SoC specific) in the same way
> most of the others in arch/x86/platform are, but instead is more akin to the
> end-product laptop drivers and such in drivers/platform/x86 which build platform
> data from DMI strings, ACPI HIDs, etc.

We still can zap it from tip/x86/platform if you want to take it through
your tree, but OTOH the merge window is close so it might be better to move
it afterwards. Either way works for me.
 
> If this isn't the right distinction between the two similarly named trees ...
> how would you like to distinguish them? I'll volunteer to get that documented
> someplace convenient to make it easier to decide what goes where.

Yes please. Documentation is always a good thing ot have.

Thanks,

	tglx

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

#1493791

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 09:29:09AM -0400, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2016, Darren Hart wrote:
> > This through me as I was trying to reconcile this series with another mellanox
> > platform driver from Vadim to the drivers/platform/x86 tree as this one also
> > came to the platform-driver-x86 mailing list.
> > 
> > There are no other entries in MAINTAINERS that use this list without files under
> > drivers/platform/x86.
> > 
> > Thomas, HPA, Ingo, do you also use the platform-driver-x86 mailing list for
> > arch/x86/platform? I had assumed this was only for drivers/platform/x86.
> 
> No. This came in via LKML.

Right, understood. I was referring to the platform-driver-x86 list being
referenced in the MAINTAINERS file. If it lives in arch/platform/x86, it
shouldn't list platform-driver-x86 in the MAINTAINER file then. I just
wanted to confirm this was the case, sounds like it is, and this was an
oversight.

>  
> > I can definitely understand how contributors might get confused.... I think I
> > may have confused myself actually :-)
> > 
> > My two cents too late, this driver seems like it would better placed in
> > drivers/platform/x86 as it isn't architectural (or SoC specific) in the same way
> > most of the others in arch/x86/platform are, but instead is more akin to the
> > end-product laptop drivers and such in drivers/platform/x86 which build platform
> > data from DMI strings, ACPI HIDs, etc.
> 
> We still can zap it from tip/x86/platform if you want to take it through
> your tree, but OTOH the merge window is close so it might be better to move
> it afterwards. Either way works for me.

Happy to follow your lead and do it afterward if you agree on the distinction
between the two subsystems, that's the issue I really care about resolving :-)

>  
> > If this isn't the right distinction between the two similarly named trees ...
> > how would you like to distinguish them? I'll volunteer to get that documented
> > someplace convenient to make it easier to decide what goes where.
> 
> Yes please. Documentation is always a good thing ot have.
> 

OK, so let's nail down the distinction. Here's a first pass strawman:

arch/platform/x86:
	Architectural support for x86 CPUs

drivers/platform/x86:
	End-product platform support, such as laptops, datacenter
		products, etc.
	Drivers for companion devices, power control, or ACPI drivers that
		are specific to x86 CPUs and end products

I added the second class to cover oddities in drivers/platform/x86 like the
following:

	intel_menlow
	intel_pmc*
	intel_pmic*
	intel_punit*
	intel_scu*
	intel_telemetry*

Is this consistent with how you see the two subsystems?


-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web