On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 06:19:14PM +0000, Eads, Gage wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Greg KH <gre...@linuxfoundation.org> > > Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2020 10:57 AM > > To: Eads, Gage <gage.e...@intel.com> > > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; a...@arndb.de; Karlsson, Magnus > > <magnus.karls...@intel.com>; Topel, Bjorn <bjorn.to...@intel.com> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/20] dlb2: add skeleton for DLB 2.0 driver > > > > On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 08:43:12AM -0500, Gage Eads wrote: > > > +config INTEL_DLB2 > > > + tristate "Intel(R) Dynamic Load Balancer 2.0 Driver" > > > + depends on 64BIT && PCI && X86 > > > > Why just that platform? What about CONFIG_TEST for everything else? > > This device will only appear on an x86 platform. CONFIG_COMPILE_TEST won't > work, since the driver uses the x86-only function iosubmit_cmds512().
Please wrap your lines correctly... Anyway, there is no config option for that function that you can trigger off of? > > > + help > > > + This driver supports the Intel(R) Dynamic Load Balancer 2.0 > > > (DLB 2.0) > > > + device. > > > > Are you sure you need the (R) in Kconfig texts everywhere? > > The second is probably overkill. Just the first one is required. Really? I would just drop it. Unless you get a signed-off-by from a lawyer saying it is required :) > > And a bit more info here would be nice, as no one knows if they have this or > > not, right? > > Intel hasn't yet announced more information that I can include here. For now, > "lspci -d 8086:2710" will tell the user if this device is present. That's fine, but we can't take a 1 sentance help text, that means nothing. > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/drivers/misc/dlb2/dlb2_hw_types.h > > > @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ > > > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-3-Clause) > > > > Why dual licensed? I thought that Intel told me they were not going to do > > that anymore for any kernel code going forward as it was just such a pain > > and > > never actually helped anything. Has that changed? > > > > The driver is mostly GPLv2-only, but a subset constitutes a "hardware access > library" that is almost completely OS-independent. "almost" because it has > calls to non-GPL symbols like kmalloc() and kfree(). This dual-licensed > portion can be ported to other environments that need the more permissive BSD > license. Then put that "OS independant" part as a separate file, with a separate license. You all know how to do this properly, don't mix this stuff up. But even then, I would drop such a library as that's not going to make a good Linux driver, we do not like, or need, such things in the kernel. > For the broader policy question, Intel's open source team will get back to > you on this. Wonderful, when will that happen? thanks, greg k-h
