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: <1536078525-31534-1-git-send-email-sunil.kovvuri@gmail.com>
 <CA+sq2CdNRkbGrk4rHOQX1qHrRc2+=DXBscw7cD9UKrX4G5OaVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK8P3a32gpNX42NuzmbW1PbsHpq7v7LoQ6WDeKtt=QiYbuyM7w@mail.gmail.com> <CA+sq2CeOSY9VLEY6ruGceo+NkwtfDuivy9joMkx9P3JTPyZxZQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+sq2CeOSY9VLEY6ruGceo+NkwtfDuivy9joMkx9P3JTPyZxZQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Date:   Tue, 11 Sep 2018 22:05:27 +0200
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a2+r_ZYZkmD_MLXbHZoEpCm=5zUajFDANjjBA0tuauSqw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/15] soc: octeontx2: Add RVU admin function driver
To:     Sunil Kovvuri <sunil.kovvuri@gmail.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        linux-soc@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Networking <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, sgoutham@marvell.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 6:28 PM Sunil Kovvuri <sunil.kovvuri@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 7:07 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 2:37 PM Sunil Kovvuri <sunil.kovvuri@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Didn't receive any feedback for the v3 patch series over a week's time.
> > > Can you please pick up these patches to merge into arm-soc ?
> >
> > I would still prefer to see the whole thing as part of drivers/net/
> > instead of drivers/soc,
> > and reviewed in full on the netdev side, including the parts that are
> > not ethernet specific.
> >
> >        Arnd
>
> Hmm.. I agree that there are many networking terms used in the driver
> but it's not a
> networking driver, it's just a HW configuration driver which includes
> how HW should
> parse the packet. This driver doesn't fit into drivers/net.

Who says it doesn't fit?

> Let's say if netdev driver in drivers/net/ethernet doesn't make use of
> crypto feature
> then i guess netdev maintainers would reject any patches which configure crypto
> block. Also as i have been saying there are other scenarios as well.
> Future silicons may add support for other features into this resource
> virtualization unit's domain.
> An example would be compression. Any patches which do compression
> related HW configuration
> might be rejected by netdev maintainers, cause they are no way related
> to networking.
>
> I will keep netdev mailing list in all the patch submissions but
> moving this driver into drivers/net
> doesn't sound right, from it's functionality perspective.

Have you discussed this with the network maintainers? I agree that
it's not a perfect fit, but IMHO it would be better to keep everything
in one place than to split the code location into separate ddirectories
for management, networking and crypto. If we find one place for it,
then I think drivers/net/ethernet is the best since the purpose of that
(combined) hardware is ultimately to interface with ethernet.

If the network folks say they don't want it there, we can take the
management bits into drivers/soc as you suggest.

       Arnd