lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Dec]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 00/22] Intel Vision Processing Unit base enabling part 1
On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 11:14:12AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 03:06:45PM -0800, mgross@linux.intel.com wrote:
> > From: mark gross <mgross@linux.intel.com>
> >
> > The Intel Vision Processing Unit (VPU) is an IP block that is showing up for
> > the first time as part of the Keem Bay SOC. Keem Bay is a quad core A53 Arm
> > SOC. It is designed to be used as a stand alone SOC as well as in an PCIe
> > Vision Processing accelerator add in card.
> >
> > This part 1 of the patches make up the base or core of the stack needed to
> > enable both use cases for the VPU.
> >
> > Part 2 includes 11 more patches that depend on part 1. Those should be ready
> > in a couple of weeks or less.
> >
> > I am trying something a bit new with this sequence where I've been working with
> > the driver developers as a "pre-maintainer" reviewing and enforcing the kernel
> > expectations as I understand them. Its taken a couple of months to get this
> > code to the point I feel its ready for public posting. My goal is to make sure
> > it meets expectations for quality and compliance with kernel expectations and
> > there will be mostly technical / design issues to talk about.
> >
> > Thanks for looking at these and providing feedback.
> >
> > --mark
> > p.s. I have had a problem my MTA configuration between mutt and git send-email
> > where I was using msmpt to send from mutt (because 15+ years ago its the first
> > way I got to work and never changed) while my worstation MTA that git
> > send-email uses was un-configured resulting in my return-path naming my
> > workstion withing the firewall. I suck at email administration.
> >
> > I appologies for the multiple copies.
>
> Ah, here's the full set of patches...
>
> But, you didn't cc: everyone on them, some of us just got a partial set
> of patches, why?
Because I thought ccing everyone on all the changes was not what was expected.
Does the DT guy want to see all the non-DT changes?

this is my first time sending a big patch set that crosses subsystems like
this. I'm not sure what the preferd way to do things so I used
get_maintainer.pl on each patch to add thime in the cc: tags just above the
signed off's.

Should I have simply concatinated the list of mainttainers and CC them all on
all the patches?

>
> still confused,
its my fault.

--mark

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-12-01 18:57    [W:0.200 / U:0.024 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site