All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>
To: 'Arnd Bergmann' <arnd@arndb.de>, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Cc: 'Thierry Reding' <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
	linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: RE: [PATCH 00/17] ARM: S5P64X0, S5PC100: no more support in mainline
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 11:08:35 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <02c101cf94d1$5d783b30$1868b190$@samsung.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4717633.z8gH3C8KXB@wuerfel>

Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> 
> On Monday 30 June 2014 16:22:25 Thierry Reding wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 03:34:27PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 01 July 2014 06:32:10 Kukjin Kim wrote:
> > > > This series removes S5P64X0 and S5PC100 related codes in mainline,
> > > > because no more user now. And if its supporting is required later,
> > > > it will be done with using device tree.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> >
> > It seems like I'm not completely up-to-date. What happened to our prime
> > directive never to remove support for boards? Why is this special? What
> > about people that still use this hardware? The commit message says that
> > there are no longer any users. How was this determined?
> 
I asked whether we may remove its supporting in mainline before not just one
time and then no objection at that time...

> From what I can tell, the supported machines on these two platforms are
> all the official development prototypes, not production boards, and they
> came out in rather small quantities, probably Samsung-internal for the
> most part. The maintainers have previously assured me they are not aware
> of anybody using it, and I trust their judgment.
> 
Yeah, I think so ;-)

> I'm totally fine with removing support for these machines, and we have
> removed a number of similar platforms in the past. The rule is not that

S5P6442. I did commit a73ddc61 'ARM: S5P6442: Removing ARCH_S5P6442' in 2011
because that could not be mass-produced.

> we never remove stuff, the rule is that we never break things for
> active users.
> 
YES.

> As always, if it turns out that we missed some active users, we will
> revert these patches, or bring support back another way.
> 
Sure, so please let us know if you have any objection on this removing.

> This should probably all be spelled out explicitly in the changelog
> for patch 1, which I admit I have not seen.
> 
It's my fault, sorry I forgot it and I'm resending 1/17 and 8/17 with -D.

Thanks,
Kukjin

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: kgene.kim@samsung.com (Kukjin Kim)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 00/17] ARM: S5P64X0, S5PC100: no more support in mainline
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 11:08:35 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <02c101cf94d1$5d783b30$1868b190$@samsung.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4717633.z8gH3C8KXB@wuerfel>

Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> 
> On Monday 30 June 2014 16:22:25 Thierry Reding wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 03:34:27PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 01 July 2014 06:32:10 Kukjin Kim wrote:
> > > > This series removes S5P64X0 and S5PC100 related codes in mainline,
> > > > because no more user now. And if its supporting is required later,
> > > > it will be done with using device tree.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> >
> > It seems like I'm not completely up-to-date. What happened to our prime
> > directive never to remove support for boards? Why is this special? What
> > about people that still use this hardware? The commit message says that
> > there are no longer any users. How was this determined?
> 
I asked whether we may remove its supporting in mainline before not just one
time and then no objection at that time...

> From what I can tell, the supported machines on these two platforms are
> all the official development prototypes, not production boards, and they
> came out in rather small quantities, probably Samsung-internal for the
> most part. The maintainers have previously assured me they are not aware
> of anybody using it, and I trust their judgment.
> 
Yeah, I think so ;-)

> I'm totally fine with removing support for these machines, and we have
> removed a number of similar platforms in the past. The rule is not that

S5P6442. I did commit a73ddc61 'ARM: S5P6442: Removing ARCH_S5P6442' in 2011
because that could not be mass-produced.

> we never remove stuff, the rule is that we never break things for
> active users.
> 
YES.

> As always, if it turns out that we missed some active users, we will
> revert these patches, or bring support back another way.
> 
Sure, so please let us know if you have any objection on this removing.

> This should probably all be spelled out explicitly in the changelog
> for patch 1, which I admit I have not seen.
> 
It's my fault, sorry I forgot it and I'm resending 1/17 and 8/17 with -D.

Thanks,
Kukjin

  reply	other threads:[~2014-07-01  2:08 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 83+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-06-30 21:32 [PATCH 00/17] ARM: S5P64X0, S5PC100: no more support in mainline Kukjin Kim
2014-06-30 21:32 ` Kukjin Kim
2014-06-30 13:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-06-30 13:34   ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-06-30 14:22   ` Thierry Reding
2014-06-30 14:22     ` Thierry Reding
2014-06-30 14:31     ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-06-30 14:31       ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-07-01  2:08       ` Kukjin Kim [this message]
2014-07-01  2:08         ` Kukjin Kim
2014-06-30 15:31 ` Tushar Behera
2014-06-30 15:31   ` Tushar Behera
2014-07-01  2:08   ` Kukjin Kim
2014-07-01  2:08     ` Kukjin Kim
2014-06-30 21:32 ` [PATCH 02/17] gpio: samsung: remove s5p64x0 related gpio codes Kukjin Kim
2014-06-30 21:32   ` Kukjin Kim
2014-07-07 16:05   ` Linus Walleij
2014-07-07 16:05     ` Linus Walleij
2014-06-30 21:32 ` [PATCH 03/17] spi: s3c64xx: remove s5p64x0 related spi codes Kukjin Kim
2014-06-30 21:32   ` Kukjin Kim
2014-06-30 21:32 ` [PATCH 04/17] ASoC: samsung: no more support for S5P6440 and S5P6450 SoCs Kukjin Kim
2014-06-30 21:32   ` Kukjin Kim
2014-06-30 21:32 ` [PATCH 05/17] pwm: samsung: remove s5p64x0 related pwm codes Kukjin Kim
2014-06-30 21:32   ` Kukjin Kim
2014-07-04  8:10   ` Tomasz Figa
2014-07-04  8:10     ` Tomasz Figa
2014-07-07 22:23     ` Kukjin Kim
2014-07-07 22:23       ` Kukjin Kim
2014-07-08 15:43       ` Tomasz Figa
2014-07-08 15:43         ` Tomasz Figa
2014-06-30 21:32 ` [PATCH 06/17] video: fbdev: s3c-fb: remove s5p64x0 related fimd codes Kukjin Kim
2014-06-30 21:32   ` Kukjin Kim
2014-07-01  2:04   ` Jingoo Han
2014-07-01  2:04     ` Jingoo Han
2014-07-01  6:25   ` Tomi Valkeinen
2014-07-01  6:25     ` Tomi Valkeinen
2014-06-30 21:32 ` [PATCH 07/17] serial: samsung: no more support for S5P6440 and S5P6450 SoCs Kukjin Kim
2014-06-30 21:32   ` Kukjin Kim
2014-06-30 21:32 ` [PATCH 09/17] gpio: samsung: remov s5pc100 related gpio codes Kukjin Kim
2014-06-30 21:32   ` Kukjin Kim
2014-07-07 16:05   ` Linus Walleij
2014-07-07 16:05     ` Linus Walleij
2014-06-30 21:32 ` [PATCH 10/17] spi: s3c64xx: remove s5pc100 related spi codes Kukjin Kim
2014-06-30 21:32   ` Kukjin Kim
2014-06-30 21:32 ` [PATCH 11/17] pwm: samsung: remove s5pc100 related pwm codes Kukjin Kim
2014-06-30 21:32   ` Kukjin Kim
2014-07-03 12:44   ` Tomasz Figa
2014-07-03 12:44     ` Tomasz Figa
2014-07-04  7:32     ` Kukjin Kim
2014-07-04  7:32       ` Kukjin Kim
2014-07-04  8:07       ` Tomasz Figa
2014-07-04  8:07         ` Tomasz Figa
2014-06-30 21:32 ` [PATCH 12/17] serial: samsung: no more support for S5PC100 SoC Kukjin Kim
2014-06-30 21:32   ` Kukjin Kim
2014-06-30 21:32 ` [PATCH 13/17] ata: pata_samsung_cf: removes s5pc100 related ata codes Kukjin Kim
2014-06-30 21:32   ` Kukjin Kim
2014-06-30 14:49   ` Tejun Heo
2014-06-30 14:49     ` Tejun Heo
2014-06-30 21:32 ` [PATCH 14/17] mtd: onenand: remove s5pc100 related onenand codes Kukjin Kim
2014-06-30 21:32   ` Kukjin Kim
2014-07-12  7:12   ` Brian Norris
2014-07-12  7:12     ` Brian Norris
2014-07-12  7:12     ` Brian Norris
2014-06-30 21:32 ` [PATCH 15/17] video: fbdev: s3c-fb: remove s5pc100 related fimd and fb codes Kukjin Kim
2014-06-30 21:32   ` Kukjin Kim
2014-07-01  2:05   ` Jingoo Han
2014-07-01  2:05     ` Jingoo Han
2014-06-30 21:32 ` [PATCH 16/17] [media] exynos4-is: removes s5pc100 related fimc codes Kukjin Kim
2014-06-30 21:32   ` Kukjin Kim
2014-06-30 14:03   ` Sylwester Nawrocki
2014-06-30 14:03     ` Sylwester Nawrocki
2014-06-30 21:32 ` [PATCH 17/17] ASoC: Samsung: remove s5pc100 related codes Kukjin Kim
2014-06-30 21:32   ` Kukjin Kim
2014-07-14 18:05   ` Mark Brown
2014-07-14 18:05     ` Mark Brown
2014-07-02 18:02 ` [PATCH 00/17] ARM: S5P64X0, S5PC100: no more support in mainline Tomasz Figa
2014-07-02 18:02   ` Tomasz Figa
2014-07-02 22:46   ` Kukjin Kim
2014-07-02 22:46     ` Kukjin Kim
2014-07-03  3:35     ` Sachin Kamat
2014-07-03  3:35       ` Sachin Kamat
2014-07-04  8:43       ` Kukjin Kim
2014-07-04  8:43         ` Kukjin Kim

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='02c101cf94d1$5d783b30$1868b190$@samsung.com' \
    --to=kgene.kim@samsung.com \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=thierry.reding@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.