"Paulraj, Sandeep" <[email protected]> writes: > Kevin, > > Please see inline > >> >> > The patch has received no comments so far (here and on spi-general- >> devel). >> > >> > Can someone test it on davinci's other that the DM6446 to see that >> support for >> > others has not broken? >> > >> > Kevin - Is there anything that keeps it from merging upstream to this >> tree? >> >> Hi Pablo, >> >> Sorry for the delay, I've been travelling and not able to watch >> DaVinci closely enough... >> >> This driver should be merged via the SPI subsystem (maintained by >> David Brownell), not the Davinci core code which I maintain. >> >> That being said, in my view, here's why this driver is not ready for >> upstream: >> >> 1) The original driver from Sandeep that you based yours on was still >> going through revisions. The last review comments[1] from David >> Brownell had not yet been addressed by Sandeep. I hope that >> Sandeep will have a chance to address the existing review comments >> on his code, and then review yours. However, you've made it >> rather difficult to do that because... > > [Sandeep] There were a set of comments from David Brownell(which was > actually, thanks to him, in the from of a patch). David did say > that the SPI support in that form was ready for an initial merge. I > tested it on DM355/Dm365 and Dm6467 and that driver(meant for the > initial merge) is in our ARAGO tree. Afcourse we all agreed that > there are things to add in the SPI driver. Also IIRC(and I am > willing to be corrected) David did say that he would send it > upstream when he got some time so I did not do it myself. The fact > that he maintains the SPI subsystem had a part to play in my > decision.
OK, I'll continue the original thread with some more questions on this topic. >> >> 2) You should have your patch apply on top of Sandeep's series, not >> just absorb it. That way we can clearly see what you are adding >> and/or changing from Sandeeps original driver. To make this part >> easier, I created a 'temp/spi' branch of davinci git where I've >> pushed the latest versions of the patches from Sandeep. Any >> additions/updates/fixes you have should be posted as patches >> against that for easier discussion and review. >> >> 3) As Sandeep did, you should keep the changes to the board/SoC code >> (arch/arm/mach-davinci/*) as a separate patch from the driver code >> (drivers/spi/*) >> >> 4) this driver needs more testing > > [Sandeep] tested by TI test team on DM355 and DM365 and I have tested on > DM6467. Sandeep, your driver recieved sufficient testing. The driver that I was saying needs more changes was this one proposed by Pablo. Kevin _______________________________________________ Davinci-linux-open-source mailing list [email protected] http://linux.davincidsp.com/mailman/listinfo/davinci-linux-open-source
