Re: [PATCH 3/3] pch_gbe: Add MinnowBoard support

[Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com>]

On Sat, 2013-07-13 at 10:09 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 09:08:01AM -0700, Darren Hart wrote:

...
> > I was looking at it as a quirk:
> > 
> > " - New device IDs and quirks are also accepted."
> > 
> > I even considered implementation as a pci quirk. I didn't because the
> > PHY work needed to happen too late during probe. The frustrating thing
> > is there is probably 15 lines of code that are needed to get it to
> > work, all the rest is infrastructure to make it generic.
> 
> 163 lines of code is not a "quirk" I can accept.  When I wrote, "new
> device ids or quirks can be accpted for stable", I meant things like
> commit 9e9dd0e889c76c786e8f2e164c825c3c06dea30c.  That's acceptable.
> Not thing huge thing.

Got it. I was confused on "new device IDs and quirks" versus "support
for new hardware". My fault, that's clear now. 

...
> > I get the size argument. It's too big. The docs say 100 lines with
> > context, I've seen much larger go in... I just wasn't sure where the
> > line is. It seems things are getting more strict here, not less. OK.
> > Lesson learned.
> 
> You have seen larger "quirks" than this go into the stable tree?
> Examples for where I've been sleeping on the job would be good.

No, sorry, I just meant patches larger than 100 lines with context,
that's all.

...
> > > This isn't going to land in Linus's tree until 3.12 anyway, so what's
> > > the rush?
> > 
> > My reasoning is that the BSP for this is based on 3.8. I would like to
> > bring 3.8 in sync with master for support of this board so I can update
> > the release BSP to use the same sources. People can use my code from
> > the linux-yocto_3.8 standard/minnow branch, but it would be preferable
> > if that code was also destined for upstream.
> 
> That's your choice to pick 3.8, not upstream's (and frankly, not
> something that I would have picked, but that's another topic...)

Maybe we can catch up at LPC or something, I'd like to hear your
thoughts on that. Of course there are a lot of factors that go into
that decision, and the bulk of it is consolidating effort on a single
tree across BSPs in a project that has a 6 month release cadence.

...
> You are adding functionality for new devices that take much more than a
> simple "add an id to a table", so no, it's not ok for stable releases.

Got it, I'll drop the stable lines from the subsequent versions and
keep that in mind for future projects. I'm trying to think if I can
polish up the docs to help clarify things, thinking on it.

Thank you Greg.

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yocto Project - Technical Lead - Linux Kernel