On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 02:02:10PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > As for the drivers all living under drivers/greybus/ I understand, but
> > we need the greybus core present first before we can get the drivers in.
> > How about we do what happened with IIO, we take the greybus core code in
> > drivers/greybus/ and put the drivers in staging, and then move them out
> > of staging into the "real" portion of the kernel as they get reviewed
> > and accepted?
> > 
> > Any objections to that workflow?
> Personally, yes.
> I would rather see the few core patches go through some level of review
> first. It's vastly easier to handle that than to reverse-engineer an
> understanding of the code when "move XXX out of staging/" patches
> appear.
> I'm more than happy to review a reasonably-size, linearised series for
> that core code.
> My concerns previously mentioned still apply to the patches queued in
> linux-next, regardless of whether these patches are under staging.
> Especially given the ABI implications of the devicetree bindings.

There are no ABI implications just yet, we are free to change anything
we want.  It's all in drivers/staging/ now, where we will clean it up
some more over the next few weeks and then post reviewable sets of
patches to move portions out of staging (greybus core first, then some
class drivers, then the subsystem-specific things).  That will give you
your set of clean patches to review, and with the first rounds, no
device tree bindings at all :)


greg k-h

Reply via email to