Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cover.1656341824.git.geert+renesas@glider.be> <2fd9b9e3f60fe555d9dcad499c90e3ec869aa96e.1656341824.git.geert+renesas@glider.be>
 <c65d6a94-b5c2-e2e4-6fdb-b7982d291e01@linaro.org> <CAMuHMdW=s42sfFwimizTsNjyKue+W9NasTOG0jgjkgkoKv3wfw@mail.gmail.com>
 <bab4d845-330e-c7f0-5dac-a96caa93a39e@linaro.org> <CAMuHMdUuU4qtfYh=hpY9bWMLKAnz83Oj8f=M9_iUxmR+Zetsow@mail.gmail.com>
 <c04c3691-7be3-afc5-4f95-2b06ee402c0d@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <c04c3691-7be3-afc5-4f95-2b06ee402c0d@linaro.org>
From:   Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Date:   Thu, 30 Jun 2022 11:15:34 +0200
Message-ID: <CAMuHMdUEeLuaG_sgYZudKv8fEpExdHz4grFj8a6DuzdRng+u_w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] memory: renesas-rpc-if: Move resource acquisition to .probe()
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
Cc:     Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@ti.com>,
        Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@omp.ru>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>,
        Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com>,
        Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
        MTD Maling List <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>,
        Linux-Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-spi <linux-spi@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Hi Krzysztof,

On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 10:48 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 29/06/2022 20:48, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >> You sure? Except rebasing I don't see that. rpcif_sw_init() received the
> >> rpcif so it had access to all fields.
> >
> > Yes I am, don't be misguided by the name of the local variable.
> > The rpcif structure is allocated by the HF or SPI child driver,
> > and thus not available in the RPC core driver's .probe() function.
> > The rpc_priv structure (as of patch 4) is allocated by the RPC core driver.
> >
> >>> I agree patches 1-3 could be moved later, if you think it is worthwhile.
> >>
> >> This would not be enough, it has to be first patch to be backportable.
> >
> > I can make it second? ;-)
>
> Why? The point is that this commit should have Fixes or Cc-stable tag.
> If you make it depending on other non-backportable commit, stable folks
> cannot pull it automatically.

Because the current driver structure does not allow us to fix the
problem in a simple way.  Hence the need for patch 4 first.

> > Note that that still precludes (easily) backporting s2ram support.
>
> But S2R is a feature so it won't be backported...

Working rebind is a feature, too?

Actually non-working s2ram is worse, as it returns corrupted data
(haven't dared to try writing after s2ram yet ;-),  while non-working
rebind means you just cannot access the device anymore.

But note there are still issues with s2ram...

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds