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

Groups > linux.kernel > #1590750 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v5 0/4] New Microsemi PCI Switch Management Driver

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: [PATCH v5 0/4] New Microsemi PCI Switch Management Driver Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> - 2017-03-02 02:00 +0100

#1590750 — Re: [PATCH v5 0/4] New Microsemi PCI Switch Management Driver

On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 10:11:56AM -0700, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
> 
> > This driver doesn't have anything to do with the PCI core, other than
> > using the pci_register_driver() interface (just like all other drivers
> > for PCI-connected devices), so drivers/pci doesn't really feel like
> > the right place for it.  Putting it in drivers/pci leads to the sort
> > of confusion you mentioned above ("To make this entirely clear ...").
> > 
> > Would drivers/perf or drivers/misc/switchtec/ be possible places for
> > it?
> 
> I made a similar argument when we made the decision of where to put the
> code. In the end, the device _is_ a PCI Switch and someone going through
> menuconfig or the source tree would probably look there first.
> 
> As for drivers/perf, our device does a fair bit more than performance
> counters so it doesn't seem like it really fits in there. drivers/misc
> just seems like a dumping ground which we'd prefer not to contribute to.
> We also considered drivers/char (seeing it exposes a char device), but
> that also seems like a dumping ground with stuff that belongs and other
> stuff that just ended up stuck between the cracks.
> 
> If you still feel strongly about this we can move it into misc, but I
> think from an organizational perspective pci/switch makes a bit more sense.

It's not a perfect fit in drivers/pci because it's not bus
infrastructure and I don't want to be the default maintainer of it,
but I agree there's not really an alternative that's clearly better,
so let's leave it where it is for now.

> In any case, I also wish we could have had this discussion 3 months ago
> when we posted the RFC and not when I have people pushing to get this
> merged.

You and me both!  I hope some of those same people are pushing to help
avoid the tragedy of the commons by helping review other
contributions.

Bjorn

[toc] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web