Topcliff: Update PCH_I2C driver to 2.6.36

Could you merge this patch to 2.6.37 ?

Change Summary
- Change Author
- Change Name of "Signed-off-by"

Thanks, Tomoya(OKI SEMICONDUCTOR CO., LTD.)

---
I2C driver of Topcliff PCH

Topcliff PCH is the platform controller hub that is going to be used in Intel's upcoming general embedded platform. All IO peripherals in Topcliff PCH are actually devices sitting on AMBA bus. Topcliff PCH has I2C I/F. Using this I/F, it is able to access system devices connected to I2C.

Signed-off-by Tomoya MORINAGA <tomoya-linux-ECg8zkTtlr0C6LszWs/[email protected]>

Reviewed-by Linus Walleij <linus.walleij-0IS4wlFg1OjSUeElwK9/[email protected]>

---
 drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig   |    8 +
 drivers/i2c/busses/Makefile  |    1 +
 drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-pch.c |  908 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I don't like this driver name at all. For one thing, "pch" is too short. Many other vendors could come up with names with acronym "PCH".

For another, Intel has many PCH (Platform Controller Hub) chips, some of them (5/3400 Series, Cougar Point, Patsburg) are or will be supported by the i2c-i801 driver, some of them (Moorestown) will be supported by the upcoming i2c-intel-mid driver (even though the name "PCH" is surprisingly missing from the source code) and your driver only supports one particular model.

So please find a name which accurately represents the hardware your driver is for. i2c-topcliff would be fine with me, but you will have to check with Intel, as I know they are quite picky with the usage of code names.

As for the driver code, I will not be able to review it, sorry. It's not in my area, I don't have the time and I don't have the hardware. I think it would make sense for Intel people to review and test it before it gets upstream.

Hi Tomoya,

Quoted 17 lines · Tomoya

Could you merge this patch to 2.6.37 ?

Change Summary
- Change Author
- Change Name of "Signed-off-by"

Thanks, Tomoya(OKI SEMICONDUCTOR CO., LTD.)

---
I2C driver of Topcliff PCH

Topcliff PCH is the platform controller hub that is going to be used in Intel's upcoming general embedded platform. All IO peripherals in Topcliff PCH are actually devices sitting on AMBA bus. Topcliff PCH has I2C I/F. Using this I/F, it is able to access system devices connected to I2C.

Quoted 7 lines

Signed-off-by Tomoya MORINAGA <tomoya-linux-ECg8zkTtlr0C6LszWs/[email protected]>

Reviewed-by Linus Walleij <linus.walleij-0IS4wlFg1OjSUeElwK9/[email protected]>

---
 drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig   |    8 +
 drivers/i2c/busses/Makefile  |    1 +
 drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-pch.c |  908 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I don't like this driver name at all. For one thing, "pch" is too short. Many other vendors could come up with names with acronym "PCH".

For another, Intel has many PCH (Platform Controller Hub) chips, some of them (5/3400 Series, Cougar Point, Patsburg) are or will be supported by the i2c-i801 driver, some of them (Moorestown) will be supported by the upcoming i2c-intel-mid driver (even though the name "PCH" is surprisingly missing from the source code) and your driver only supports one particular model.

So please find a name which accurately represents the hardware your driver is for. i2c-topcliff would be fine with me, but you will have to check with Intel, as I know they are quite picky with the usage of code names.

As for the driver code, I will not be able to review it, sorry. It's not in my area, I don't have the time and I don't have the hardware. I think it would make sense for Intel people to review and test it before it gets upstream.

Signature · 1 line

Jean Delvare

Quoted 9 lines · Jean Delvare

I don't like this driver name at all. For one thing, "pch" is too short. Many other vendors could come up with names with acronym "PCH".

For another, Intel has many PCH (Platform Controller Hub) chips, some of them (5/3400 Series, Cougar Point, Patsburg) are or will be supported by the i2c-i801 driver, some of them (Moorestown) will be supported by the upcoming i2c-intel-mid driver (even though the name "PCH" is surprisingly missing from the source code) and your driver only supports one particular model.

Yes, this driver suppors only Topcliff(Intel Atom E6xx series) now.

Quoted 4 lines

So please find a name which accurately represents the hardware your driver is for. i2c-topcliff would be fine with me, but you will have to check with Intel, as I know they are quite picky with the usage of code names.

Most drivers for Topcliff have been accepted with "pch_" prefix.

Only SPI driver, like you indicates, have accepted as spi_topcliff_pch.c. If you request, I can modify "pch_i2c.c" to "i2c-topcliff_pch.c".

Quoted 4 lines

As for the driver code, I will not be able to review it, sorry. It's not in my area, I don't have the time and I don't have the hardware. I think it would make sense for Intel people to review and test it before it gets upstream.

No problem!
After reviewing by Intel(:CCed), we started posting to LKML and we have already tested this patch on the EVA Board.

Tuhs, I want you to merge to this patch to 2.6.37 ASAP.

The _pch becomes redundant then, i2c-topcliff.c would be enough, but both are fine with me, as my initial concern is gone.

There's no Reviewed-by, Acked-by or Signed-off-by from anyone at Intel in the patch you posted.

Reviewed-by Linus Walleij <[email protected]>

Hi Jean,

Quoted 2 lines · Jean Delvare

The _pch becomes redundant then, i2c-topcliff.c would be enough, but both are fine with me, as my initial concern is gone.

I agree.
I will modify to "i2c-topcliff.c".

Quoted 2 lines

There's no Reviewed-by, Acked-by or Signed-off-by from anyone at Intel in the patch you posted.

Must we get Intel's signature ?
We have already got the following. Isn't this enough ?

Quoted 1 line

Reviewed-by Linus Walleij <linus.walleij-0IS4wlFg1OjSUeElwK9/[email protected]>

Though I haven't heard like the requirement,
if Intel's signature is mandatory, I will request to Intel.

It's not mandatory, but the time Ben and myself have to review new drivers is scarce, so it's in your own interest to have the code reviewed by people with more time and more interest in the specific hardware. I can only imagine that Intel wants Topcliff to be supported as soon as possible by the Linux kernel, so they should certainly have resources to allocate for the review and testing.

Hi Qi and Yong Y

Quoted 8 lines

Hi Jean,

Quoted 2 lines · Jean Delvare

The _pch becomes redundant then, i2c-topcliff.c would be enough, but both are fine with me, as my initial concern is gone.

I agree.
I will modify to "i2c-topcliff.c".

Quoted 8 lines

Quoted 2 lines

There's no Reviewed-by, Acked-by or Signed-off-by from anyone at Intel in the patch you posted.

Must we get Intel's signature ?
We have already got the following. Isn't this enough ?

Quoted 1 line

Reviewed-by Linus Walleij <linus.walleij-0IS4wlFg1OjSUeElwK9/[email protected]>

Though I haven't heard like the requirement,
if Intel's signature is mandatory, I will request to Intel.

It's not mandatory, but the time Ben and myself have to review new drivers is scarce, so it's in your own interest to have the code reviewed by people with more time and more interest in the specific hardware. I can only imagine that Intel wants Topcliff to be supported as soon as possible by the Linux kernel, so they should certainly have resources to allocate for the review and testing.

Signature · 6 lines

Jean Delvare
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Quoted 4 lines

Must we get Intel's signature ?
We have already got the following. Isn't  this enough ?

Quoted 1 line

Reviewed-by Linus Walleij <linus.walleij-0IS4wlFg1OjSUeElwK9/[email protected]>

Quoted 2 lines

Though I haven't heard like the requirement,
if Intel's signature is mandatory, I will request to Intel.

It's not mandatory, but the time Ben and myself have to review new drivers is scarce, so it's in your own interest to have the code reviewed by people with more time and more interest in the specific hardware.