On Sat, Dec 05, 2020 at 04:37:25PM +0000, Gross, Mark wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Greg KH <gre...@linuxfoundation.org> > > Sent: Saturday, December 5, 2020 12:40 AM > > To: mark gross <mgr...@linux.intel.com> > > Cc: markgr...@kernel.org; a...@arndb.de; b...@suse.de; > > damien.lem...@wdc.com; dragan.cve...@xilinx.com; cor...@lwn.net; > > leonard.cres...@nxp.com; palmerdabb...@google.com; > > paul.walms...@sifive.com; peng....@nxp.com; robh...@kernel.org; > > shawn...@kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Alessandrelli, Daniele > > <daniele.alessandre...@intel.com>; Iyer, Sundar <sundar.i...@intel.com> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/22] keembay-ipc: Add Keem Bay IPC module > > > > On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 07:35:17PM -0800, mark gross wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 08:01:18PM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > > > > On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 09:42:00AM -0800, mark gross wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 07:16:20AM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 02:34:52PM -0800, mgr...@linux.intel.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > --- a/MAINTAINERS > > > > > > > +++ b/MAINTAINERS > > > > > > > @@ -8955,6 +8955,14 @@ M: Deepak Saxena <dsax...@plexity.net> > > > > > > > S: Maintained > > > > > > > F: drivers/char/hw_random/ixp4xx-rng.c > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +INTEL KEEM BAY IPC DRIVER > > > > > > > +M: Daniele Alessandrelli <daniele.alessandre...@intel.com> > > > > > > > +M: Mark Gross <mgr...@linux.intel.com> > > > > > > > +S: Maintained > > > > > > > +F: > > > > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/intel/intel,keembay- > > ipc.yaml > > > > > > > +F: drivers/soc/intel/keembay-ipc.c > > > > > > > +F: include/linux/soc/intel/keembay-ipc.h > > > > > > > > > > > > Sad that Intel is not going to actually pay you all to do this > > > > > > maintenance work for a brand new subsystem you are wanting to > > > > > > add to the tree :( > > > > > I thought adding my name to these maintainer items would help with > > > > > continuity as the individual engineers tend to move on to other > > > > > things over > > time. > > > > > > > > > > While I'm paid for a number of things at intel this is one of > > > > > them. My role is as stable as I choose it to be at the point I'm > > > > > at in my Intel career and the business unit I'm now part of. We > > > > > can leave my name off if that would be better. > > > > > > > > > > Even if I'm not a VPU IP domain expert like Daniele is I can still > > > > > chase down the experts as needed after Daniele grows into other > > > > > things over > > time. > > > > > > > > I'm not objecting to your, or anyone else's name on this at all. > > > > I'm just asking about Intel's support for this new codebase being added. > > > > Having a new subsystem from a major company and not have someone > > > > paid to actually maintain it seems really odd to me. > > > > > > > > That's all. If that's Intel's stance, that's fine, just wanted to > > > > clarify it is correct as I know some people at Intel have been > > > > confused recently about just what the S: field means. > > > I've been following up on whether the status field should be > > > "Supported" or "Maintained" at this time. For this current > > > instantiation of the VPU enabling under review here I think Maintained > > > most appropriate. There are a good number of people who look after it. > > > > > > However; I have learned that the instantiations of the VPU after keem > > > bay and its follow on SoC will include an evolution of this stack and > > > between now and when those get close to landing that evolved version will > > become "Supported". > > > > > > Given this, would it be more appropriate to put this stack into > > > staging for a while? > > > > drivers/staging/ is for code that for some reason is not good enough to be > > merged > > to the "right" place in the kernel tree, and you need community help to get > > it > > cleaned up because you can not do it yourself. > > > > Is that the case here? If not, then no, it should not go into > > drivers/staging/. > That is not the case here. Lets proceed as we are on this then. > I guess technically we have number of engineers paid to look after this version of the VPU enabling. I guess I'm over thinking things. I'll change it S: record from Maintained to Supported on the next version.
--mark
