Re: [PATCH v9 6/6] memory: dfl-emif: add the DFL EMIF private feature driver

[Moritz Fischer]

Hi Krzysztof,

On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 06:40:46PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Oct 2020 at 09:15, Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > This driver is for the EMIF private feature implemented under FPGA
> > Device Feature List (DFL) framework. It is used to expose memory
> > interface status information as well as memory clearing control.
> >
> > The purpose of memory clearing block is to zero out all private memory
> > when FPGA is to be reprogrammed. This gives users a reliable method to
> > prevent potential data leakage.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Russ Weight <russell.h.weight@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > v2: Adjust the position of this driver in Kconfig.
> >     Improves the name of the Kconfig option.
> >     Change the include dfl-bus.h to dfl.h, cause the previous patchset
> >      renames the file.
> >     Some minor fixes and comment improvement.
> > v3: Adjust the position of the driver in Makefile.
> > v9: Add static prefix for emif attributes macro
> >     Update the kernel version of the sysfs interfaces in Doc.
> > ---
> >  .../ABI/testing/sysfs-bus-dfl-devices-emif         |  25 +++
> >  drivers/memory/Kconfig                             |   9 +
> >  drivers/memory/Makefile                            |   2 +
> >  drivers/memory/dfl-emif.c                          | 207 +++++++++++++++++++++
> >  4 files changed, 243 insertions(+)
> >  create mode 100644 Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-bus-dfl-devices-emif
> >  create mode 100644 drivers/memory/dfl-emif.c
> >
> 
> I am confused now. This was already taken by Moritz, wasn't it? And
> the dependencies were already taken, weren't they? Previously it was
> depending on "Modularization of DFL private feature drivers" and "add
> dfl bus support to MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE()"... now this is here so did
> the dependencies change? What is the reason to include this patch
> here?

It is confusing. Basically Greg had comments on the patch after I had
applied it. It's going through anothe round of review.

> 
> My ack was for the purpose of taking it via Moritz tree, because of
> the dependencies. If this is not the case, then probably better to
> take it via memory controllers tree to avoid any conflicts (it's not a
> small change).

Once it's ok I can put it on a branch with a stable tag and you can pull
that in and take the patch through your tree.

Does that work?

Sorry for the mess,

Moritz