Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20180125014120.20851-1-samuel@sholland.org> <20180314180830.GA6311@kroah.com>
 <CAODwPW9gbZgFKs6_Lc_oD_pPgGa1nUSdM2p0k8o9Mygx9d+HJw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAODwPW9gbZgFKs6_Lc_oD_pPgGa1nUSdM2p0k8o9Mygx9d+HJw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Julius Werner <jwerner@chromium.org>
Date:   Wed, 14 Mar 2018 21:22:04 +0000
Message-ID: <CAODwPW96LfXRbLFkX9OAUV7DH9t1MPogqvUUrCExrzk00Vy4_w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] coreboot table bus and framebuffer driver
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
        Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
Cc:     samuel@sholland.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Coreboot <coreboot@coreboot.org>,
        Julius Werner <jwerner@chromium.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

[resend in plain text]

> It would be great to get some of the google developers to ack these, as
> this touches their code...

 From the coreboot point of view I guess we're fine with it since it claims
to maintain all of the existing functionality. It's just changing the
kernel-level plumbing for these drivers and I don't really have the
expertise to comment on whether this is better or worse than the old code
(maybe Dmitry or Guenter will?). It seems a little odd to me to call this a
"bus", but if we think that's the most fitting abstraction the kernel has
for it, I'm okay with that. All I care about is that it will work (in all
combinations... e.g. regardless of probe order and even if some parts are
compiled as modules and loaded/unloaded at runtime).