On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:30:29AM +0100, Liviu Dudau wrote:
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 09:59:26AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
Although a bit late, I'm raising this now and hopefully we'll come to a conclusion soon. Delaying arm64 PCIe support even further is not a real option, which leaves us with:
- Someone else (with enough PCIe knowledge) volunteering to take over soon or
- Dropping Liviu's work and going for an arm64-specific implementation (most likely based on the arm32 implementation, see below)
[...]
In conclusion, unless someone volunteers for the first option fairly soon, we'll post the alternative patches for review and take it from there.
That would be a huge step backwards IMO and a huge dissapointment. If you go with the alternative patches from Will you will basically reset every partner's implementation that has been built on top of my patches (when they did so with the understanding that my series will be the one ARM will support and publish) *and* make anyone's attempt to create a generic implementation harder, as they will have to undo this code to remove the arch-specific parts.
I fully agree and the alternative patchset is definitely _not_ my preferred solution. You can read this email as a request for help to complete the work (whether it comes from ARM, Linaro or other interested parties). I don't mean taking over the whole patchset but potentially helping with other arch conversion (microblaze, arm multi-platform).
(however, if the generic PCIe work won't happen in reasonable time, we need to set some deadline rather than keeping the patchset out of tree indefinitely)