| Message ID | 20240808-mobivel_cleanup-v1-4-f4f6ea5b16de@nxp.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Rejected |
| Headers | show |
| Series | PCI: mobivel: Drop layerscape gen4 support | expand |
On 08/08/2024 18:02, Frank Li wrote: > LX2160 Rev1 use mobivel PCIe controller, but Rev2 switch to designware > PCIe controller. Rev2 is mass production chip. Rev1 will not be maintained > so drop maintainer information for that. > > Signed-off-by: Frank Li <Frank.Li@nxp.com> > --- > MAINTAINERS | 8 -------- > 1 file changed, 8 deletions(-) This should not be separate commit. There is no single point in that. The moment you remove driver, the entry becomes pointless, so should be removed THE SAME time. Best regards, Krzysztof
On Thu, Aug 08, 2024 at 12:02:17PM -0400, Frank Li wrote: > LX2160 Rev1 use mobivel PCIe controller, but Rev2 switch to designware > PCIe controller. Rev2 is mass production chip. Rev1 will not be maintained > so drop maintainer information for that. > Instead of suddenly removing the code and breaking users, you can just mark the driver as 'Obsolete' in MAINTAINERS. Then after some point of time, we could hopefully remove. - Mani > Signed-off-by: Frank Li <Frank.Li@nxp.com> > --- > MAINTAINERS | 8 -------- > 1 file changed, 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS > index 1e71f97fb6749..9b683899cd088 100644 > --- a/MAINTAINERS > +++ b/MAINTAINERS > @@ -17556,14 +17556,6 @@ S: Supported > F: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/nvidia,tegra20-pcie.txt > F: drivers/pci/controller/pci-tegra.c > > -PCI DRIVER FOR NXP LAYERSCAPE GEN4 CONTROLLER > -M: Hou Zhiqiang <Zhiqiang.Hou@nxp.com> > -L: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org > -L: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org (moderated for non-subscribers) > -S: Maintained > -F: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/layerscape-pcie-gen4.txt > -F: drivers/pci/controller/mobiveil/pcie-layerscape-gen4.c > - > PCI DRIVER FOR PLDA PCIE IP > M: Daire McNamara <daire.mcnamara@microchip.com> > L: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org > > -- > 2.34.1 > >
On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 9:53 AM Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 08, 2024 at 12:02:17PM -0400, Frank Li wrote: > > LX2160 Rev1 use mobivel PCIe controller, but Rev2 switch to designware > > PCIe controller. Rev2 is mass production chip. Rev1 will not be maintained > > so drop maintainer information for that. > > > > Instead of suddenly removing the code and breaking users, you can just mark the > driver as 'Obsolete' in MAINTAINERS. Then after some point of time, we could > hopefully remove. Is anyone really going to pay attention to that? It doesn't sound like there's anyone to really care, and it is the company that made the h/w asking to remove it. The only thing people use pre-production h/w for once there's production h/w is as a dust collector. If anyone complains, it's simple enough to revert these patches. Rob
On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 03:15:52PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 9:53 AM Manivannan Sadhasivam > <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Aug 08, 2024 at 12:02:17PM -0400, Frank Li wrote: > > > LX2160 Rev1 use mobivel PCIe controller, but Rev2 switch to designware > > > PCIe controller. Rev2 is mass production chip. Rev1 will not be maintained > > > so drop maintainer information for that. > > > > > > > Instead of suddenly removing the code and breaking users, you can just mark the > > driver as 'Obsolete' in MAINTAINERS. Then after some point of time, we could > > hopefully remove. > > Is anyone really going to pay attention to that? It doesn't sound like > there's anyone to really care, and it is the company that made the h/w > asking to remove it. The only thing people use pre-production h/w for > once there's production h/w is as a dust collector. > > If anyone complains, it's simple enough to revert these patches. > My comment was based on the fact that Bjorn was not comfortable in removing the driver [1] unless no Rev1 boards are not in use and Frank said that he was not sure about that [2]. But I think if Frank can atleast guarantee that the chip never made into mass production or shared with customers, then we can remove the driver IMO. But that is up to the discretion of Bjorn. - Mani [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/20240808172644.GA151261@bhelgaas/ [2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/ZrUJngABI8v3pN6o@lizhi-Precision-Tower-5810/ - Mani
On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 11:12:31AM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 03:15:52PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 9:53 AM Manivannan Sadhasivam > > <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 08, 2024 at 12:02:17PM -0400, Frank Li wrote: > > > > LX2160 Rev1 use mobivel PCIe controller, but Rev2 switch to designware > > > > PCIe controller. Rev2 is mass production chip. Rev1 will not be maintained > > > > so drop maintainer information for that. > > > > > > > > > > Instead of suddenly removing the code and breaking users, you can just mark the > > > driver as 'Obsolete' in MAINTAINERS. Then after some point of time, we could > > > hopefully remove. > > > > Is anyone really going to pay attention to that? It doesn't sound like > > there's anyone to really care, and it is the company that made the h/w > > asking to remove it. The only thing people use pre-production h/w for > > once there's production h/w is as a dust collector. > > > > If anyone complains, it's simple enough to revert these patches. > > > > My comment was based on the fact that Bjorn was not comfortable in removing the > driver [1] unless no Rev1 boards are not in use and Frank said that he was not > sure about that [2]. > > But I think if Frank can atleast guarantee that the chip never made into mass > production or shared with customers, then we can remove the driver IMO. But that > is up to the discretion of Bjorn. > I think Bjoin's request is impossible task. Generally chip company send out some evaluted sample to parter, which use these sample to built up some small quantity production. Chip company have not responsibility to call back this samples. There are always some reasons to drop mobivel and switch designware, it may be caused by some IP issues which can't match mass production's requirememnt. Such informaiton already removed from nxp.com. Only Rev2 left. Leave such dead code in pci tree actually no harm for me, and clean up need extra efforts. I send out v2, which don't build gen4 driver default. It may a feasibility way to do clean up. If no one complain for a while, it should be dead. https://lore.kernel.org/imx/20240815182420.58821-1-Frank.Li@nxp.com/T/#u Frank > - Mani > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/20240808172644.GA151261@bhelgaas/ > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/ZrUJngABI8v3pN6o@lizhi-Precision-Tower-5810/ > > - Mani > > -- > மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்
On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 01:09:50PM -0400, Frank Li wrote: > On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 11:12:31AM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 03:15:52PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 9:53 AM Manivannan Sadhasivam > > > <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Aug 08, 2024 at 12:02:17PM -0400, Frank Li wrote: > > > > > LX2160 Rev1 use mobivel PCIe controller, but Rev2 switch to designware > > > > > PCIe controller. Rev2 is mass production chip. Rev1 will not be maintained > > > > > so drop maintainer information for that. > > > > > > > > Instead of suddenly removing the code and breaking users, you can just mark the > > > > driver as 'Obsolete' in MAINTAINERS. Then after some point of time, we could > > > > hopefully remove. > > > > > > Is anyone really going to pay attention to that? It doesn't sound like > > > there's anyone to really care, and it is the company that made the h/w > > > asking to remove it. The only thing people use pre-production h/w for > > > once there's production h/w is as a dust collector. > > > > > > If anyone complains, it's simple enough to revert these patches. > > > > My comment was based on the fact that Bjorn was not comfortable in removing the > > driver [1] unless no Rev1 boards are not in use and Frank said that he was not > > sure about that [2]. > > > > But I think if Frank can atleast guarantee that the chip never made into mass > > production or shared with customers, then we can remove the driver IMO. But that > > is up to the discretion of Bjorn. > > I think Bjorn's request is impossible task. Generally chip company send > out some evaluted sample to parter, which use these sample to built up > some small quantity production. Chip company have not responsibility to > call back this samples. There are always some reasons to drop mobivel and > switch designware, it may be caused by some IP issues which can't match > mass production's requirememnt. Such informaiton already removed from > nxp.com. Only Rev2 left. If you're reasonably confident that nobody will notice the removal of support for Rev1, we can include that in the commit log and just remove it. The original commit log basically said "we don't want to support Rev1" without any indication of where those parts went or whether anybody might care about them. But if Rev1 only went to partners for evaluation and we don't expect end users to have them, I think it's reasonable to say that and remove the code. Bjorn
On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 01:15:00PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 01:09:50PM -0400, Frank Li wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 11:12:31AM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 03:15:52PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 9:53 AM Manivannan Sadhasivam > > > > <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Aug 08, 2024 at 12:02:17PM -0400, Frank Li wrote: > > > > > > LX2160 Rev1 use mobivel PCIe controller, but Rev2 switch to designware > > > > > > PCIe controller. Rev2 is mass production chip. Rev1 will not be maintained > > > > > > so drop maintainer information for that. > > > > > > > > > > Instead of suddenly removing the code and breaking users, you can just mark the > > > > > driver as 'Obsolete' in MAINTAINERS. Then after some point of time, we could > > > > > hopefully remove. > > > > > > > > Is anyone really going to pay attention to that? It doesn't sound like > > > > there's anyone to really care, and it is the company that made the h/w > > > > asking to remove it. The only thing people use pre-production h/w for > > > > once there's production h/w is as a dust collector. > > > > > > > > If anyone complains, it's simple enough to revert these patches. > > > > > > My comment was based on the fact that Bjorn was not comfortable in removing the > > > driver [1] unless no Rev1 boards are not in use and Frank said that he was not > > > sure about that [2]. > > > > > > But I think if Frank can atleast guarantee that the chip never made into mass > > > production or shared with customers, then we can remove the driver IMO. But that > > > is up to the discretion of Bjorn. > > > > I think Bjorn's request is impossible task. Generally chip company send > > out some evaluted sample to parter, which use these sample to built up > > some small quantity production. Chip company have not responsibility to > > call back this samples. There are always some reasons to drop mobivel and > > switch designware, it may be caused by some IP issues which can't match > > mass production's requirememnt. Such informaiton already removed from > > nxp.com. Only Rev2 left. > > If you're reasonably confident that nobody will notice the removal of > support for Rev1, we can include that in the commit log and just > remove it. > > The original commit log basically said "we don't want to support Rev1" > without any indication of where those parts went or whether anybody > might care about them. But if Rev1 only went to partners for > evaluation and we don't expect end users to have them, I think it's > reasonable to say that and remove the code. Thanks, I just find 2020 Yang li try to drop dts part in below thread: https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAOesGMhz8PYNG_bgMX-6gka77k1hJOZUv6xqJRqATaJ6mFbk6A@mail.gmail.com/ Olof Johansson raise concern about their HoneyComb. I added Olof Johansson in this thread. I think HoneyComb use evaluation chip to build some small quaitity boards. As my best knowledge, rev1 should have some big problem. I can't find any detail about these because rev1 informaion already cleanup totally. I don't prefer continue use risking rev1 chip. Frank > > Bjorn
On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 12:17 PM Frank Li <Frank.li@nxp.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 01:15:00PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 01:09:50PM -0400, Frank Li wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 11:12:31AM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 03:15:52PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 9:53 AM Manivannan Sadhasivam > > > > > <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 08, 2024 at 12:02:17PM -0400, Frank Li wrote: > > > > > > > LX2160 Rev1 use mobivel PCIe controller, but Rev2 switch to designware > > > > > > > PCIe controller. Rev2 is mass production chip. Rev1 will not be maintained > > > > > > > so drop maintainer information for that. > > > > > > > > > > > > Instead of suddenly removing the code and breaking users, you can just mark the > > > > > > driver as 'Obsolete' in MAINTAINERS. Then after some point of time, we could > > > > > > hopefully remove. > > > > > > > > > > Is anyone really going to pay attention to that? It doesn't sound like > > > > > there's anyone to really care, and it is the company that made the h/w > > > > > asking to remove it. The only thing people use pre-production h/w for > > > > > once there's production h/w is as a dust collector. > > > > > > > > > > If anyone complains, it's simple enough to revert these patches. > > > > > > > > My comment was based on the fact that Bjorn was not comfortable in removing the > > > > driver [1] unless no Rev1 boards are not in use and Frank said that he was not > > > > sure about that [2]. > > > > > > > > But I think if Frank can atleast guarantee that the chip never made into mass > > > > production or shared with customers, then we can remove the driver IMO. But that > > > > is up to the discretion of Bjorn. > > > > > > I think Bjorn's request is impossible task. Generally chip company send > > > out some evaluted sample to parter, which use these sample to built up > > > some small quantity production. Chip company have not responsibility to > > > call back this samples. There are always some reasons to drop mobivel and > > > switch designware, it may be caused by some IP issues which can't match > > > mass production's requirememnt. Such informaiton already removed from > > > nxp.com. Only Rev2 left. > > > > If you're reasonably confident that nobody will notice the removal of > > support for Rev1, we can include that in the commit log and just > > remove it. > > > > The original commit log basically said "we don't want to support Rev1" > > without any indication of where those parts went or whether anybody > > might care about them. But if Rev1 only went to partners for > > evaluation and we don't expect end users to have them, I think it's > > reasonable to say that and remove the code. > > Thanks, I just find 2020 Yang li try to drop dts part in below thread: > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAOesGMhz8PYNG_bgMX-6gka77k1hJOZUv6xqJRqATaJ6mFbk6A@mail.gmail.com/ > > Olof Johansson raise concern about their HoneyComb. > > I added Olof Johansson in this thread. I think HoneyComb use evaluation > chip to build some small quaitity boards. > > As my best knowledge, rev1 should have some big problem. I can't find any > detail about these because rev1 informaion already cleanup totally. I don't > prefer continue use risking rev1 chip. I paid good money for my HoneyComb, and while it was an early system, I certainly wouldn't expect it to stop working because some maintainer is bored of supporting it. It's clearly been commercially sold as systems. Mind you, I can't remember last time I powered on my system any more, since I mostly use the Ampere board or VMs on my Mac for ARM linux work when needed, but that doesn't mean I want to send off the HoneyComb to recycling. Don't regress your users. Thanks. -Olof
diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS index 1e71f97fb6749..9b683899cd088 100644 --- a/MAINTAINERS +++ b/MAINTAINERS @@ -17556,14 +17556,6 @@ S: Supported F: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/nvidia,tegra20-pcie.txt F: drivers/pci/controller/pci-tegra.c -PCI DRIVER FOR NXP LAYERSCAPE GEN4 CONTROLLER -M: Hou Zhiqiang <Zhiqiang.Hou@nxp.com> -L: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org -L: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org (moderated for non-subscribers) -S: Maintained -F: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/layerscape-pcie-gen4.txt -F: drivers/pci/controller/mobiveil/pcie-layerscape-gen4.c - PCI DRIVER FOR PLDA PCIE IP M: Daire McNamara <daire.mcnamara@microchip.com> L: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org
LX2160 Rev1 use mobivel PCIe controller, but Rev2 switch to designware PCIe controller. Rev2 is mass production chip. Rev1 will not be maintained so drop maintainer information for that. Signed-off-by: Frank Li <Frank.Li@nxp.com> --- MAINTAINERS | 8 -------- 1 file changed, 8 deletions(-)