Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 8 Oct 2021 13:25:24 -0500
From:   Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
To:     Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com>
Cc:     kelvin.cao@microchip.com, kurt.schwemmer@microsemi.com,
        bhelgaas@google.com, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kelvincao@outlook.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Switchtec Fixes and Improvements
Message-ID: <20211008182524.GA1361129@bhelgaas>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <e60010f3-f803-e60b-3412-346ccc11a0fb@deltatee.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Oct 08, 2021 at 11:23:46AM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
> On 2021-10-08 11:05 a.m., Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 11:08:37AM +0000, kelvin.cao@microchip.com wrote:
> >> From: Kelvin Cao <kelvin.cao@microchip.com>
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Please find a bunch of patches for the switchtec driver collected over the
> >> last few months.
> > 
> > Question: Is there a reason this driver should be in drivers/pci/?
> > 
> > It doesn't use any internal PCI core interfaces, e.g., it doesn't
> > include drivers/pci/pci.h, and AFAICT it's really just a driver for a
> > PCI device that happens to be a switch.
> > 
> > I don't really *care* that it's in drivers/pci; I rely on Kurt and
> > Logan to review changes.  The only problem it presents for me is that
> > I have to write merge commit logs for the changes.  You'd think that
> > would be trivial, but since I don't know much about the driver, it
> > does end up being work for me.
> 
> We did discuss this when it was originally merged.

Thanks, I thought I remembered talking about it, but didn't bother to
dig it up.

> The main reason we want it in the PCI tree is so that it's in a sensible
> spot in the Kconfig hierarchy (under PCI support). Seeing it is still
> PCI hardware. Dropping it into the miscellaneous devices mess (or
> similar) is less than desirable. Moreover, it's not like the maintainers
> for misc have any additional knowledge that would make them better
> qualified to merge these changes. In fact, I'm sure they'd have less
> knowledge and we wouldn't have gotten to the bottom of this last issue
> if it had been a different maintainer.
> 
> In the future I'll try to be more careful in my reviews to ensure we
> have a better understanding and clearer commit messages. If there's
> anything else we can do to make your job easier, please let us know.

Oh, please don't take this as me complaining about anybody's reviews!
I honestly just look for your or Kurt's ack.  I think I just need to
be a little less fixated on writing the merge commit logs :)

Bjorn