From: greg@kroah.com (Greg KH)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: staging/dream: add gpio and pmem support
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:44:45 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20091027204445.GA28878@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20091027193330.GB19379@elf.ucw.cz>
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 08:33:30PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > Could we perhaps use -I to let it build before I find time to do
> > > search&replace of 100 #includes? Yes, I'm working on that, but no, it
> > > obviously does not progress as fast as I expected...
> > >
> > > Add missing files/includes neccessary for Dream compilation.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
> >
> > Ick, no. I'm not going to take the wakelock and other header files that
> > are "generic" to android into the dream subdir. That's not ok.
>
> What is so wrong with wakelocks? They are just nops in this case.
Are they really? Then why is the whole large file needed?
> > If this code requires this mess to build, I think we should just delete
> > the whole thing and start over with patches that add code that can
> > actually build properly.
>
> Well, crap is easier to clean up when it compiles (and is in tree --
> that's point of staging -- right?), and it is not particulary bad crap
> in this case.
>
> > Any objection to that?
>
> Yes; dropping the code now will not help anything. Merging it to this
> point was not easy, and forcing me to redo it will just delay me from
> cleaning it up.
>
> Merging crappy Windows driver to staging is easy:
>
> 1) you verify it is GPL
>
> 2) you submit it
Wait, it has to BUILD! This code has never been able to be built. Only
after I disabled it from the CONFIG_ANDROID have I noticed this, which
is my fault. But it needs to get fixed, and taking a bunch of code in
addition to the mess we have now, seems like the wrong way to do it.
> [and then, clean it in tree].
>
> I tried same process with dream support:
>
> 1) driver was GPLed
>
> 2) I tried submitting
It did not BUILD!!!
> 3) I was told to split it according to authors. In Windows driver
> world, that would be show-stopper. Thanks to Google support, I figured
> authors.
>
> 4) I'm told that -I is not acceptable, not even inside
> staging. Windows drivers regulary have way worse build system
> abuses. (Of course, those need to be fixed before merging into kernel
> proper; fortunately they are easy to do incrementally).
I have never taken a driver in staging that was not self-contained or
needed any -I funkyness.
> Now, I see that wakelocks are show-stopper for merging into kernel
> proper, but what is the problem for staging? We merged drivers with
> OS_MEMORY_ALLOCATE(); wakelocks are just nops in this case.
>
> Could we please clean this driver in-tree? (Wakelocks are already nops
> due to #ifdef magic, cleaning them incrementally is easy.)
With this patch, will it build properly?
> (Plus, of course I'd like some help, but google people seem very
> silent :-( ).
Google has abandonded upstream Android development, which is a very sad
state of being :(
thanks,
greg k-h
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
Cc: Arve Hj?nnev?g <arve@android.com>,
kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
Brian Swetland <swetland@google.com>
Subject: Re: staging/dream: add gpio and pmem support
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:44:45 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20091027204445.GA28878@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20091027193330.GB19379@elf.ucw.cz>
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 08:33:30PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > Could we perhaps use -I to let it build before I find time to do
> > > search&replace of 100 #includes? Yes, I'm working on that, but no, it
> > > obviously does not progress as fast as I expected...
> > >
> > > Add missing files/includes neccessary for Dream compilation.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
> >
> > Ick, no. I'm not going to take the wakelock and other header files that
> > are "generic" to android into the dream subdir. That's not ok.
>
> What is so wrong with wakelocks? They are just nops in this case.
Are they really? Then why is the whole large file needed?
> > If this code requires this mess to build, I think we should just delete
> > the whole thing and start over with patches that add code that can
> > actually build properly.
>
> Well, crap is easier to clean up when it compiles (and is in tree --
> that's point of staging -- right?), and it is not particulary bad crap
> in this case.
>
> > Any objection to that?
>
> Yes; dropping the code now will not help anything. Merging it to this
> point was not easy, and forcing me to redo it will just delay me from
> cleaning it up.
>
> Merging crappy Windows driver to staging is easy:
>
> 1) you verify it is GPL
>
> 2) you submit it
Wait, it has to BUILD! This code has never been able to be built. Only
after I disabled it from the CONFIG_ANDROID have I noticed this, which
is my fault. But it needs to get fixed, and taking a bunch of code in
addition to the mess we have now, seems like the wrong way to do it.
> [and then, clean it in tree].
>
> I tried same process with dream support:
>
> 1) driver was GPLed
>
> 2) I tried submitting
It did not BUILD!!!
> 3) I was told to split it according to authors. In Windows driver
> world, that would be show-stopper. Thanks to Google support, I figured
> authors.
>
> 4) I'm told that -I is not acceptable, not even inside
> staging. Windows drivers regulary have way worse build system
> abuses. (Of course, those need to be fixed before merging into kernel
> proper; fortunately they are easy to do incrementally).
I have never taken a driver in staging that was not self-contained or
needed any -I funkyness.
> Now, I see that wakelocks are show-stopper for merging into kernel
> proper, but what is the problem for staging? We merged drivers with
> OS_MEMORY_ALLOCATE(); wakelocks are just nops in this case.
>
> Could we please clean this driver in-tree? (Wakelocks are already nops
> due to #ifdef magic, cleaning them incrementally is easy.)
With this patch, will it build properly?
> (Plus, of course I'd like some help, but google people seem very
> silent :-( ).
Google has abandonded upstream Android development, which is a very sad
state of being :(
thanks,
greg k-h
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-10-27 20:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-10-22 9:13 staging/dream: add gpio and pmem support Pavel Machek
2009-10-22 9:13 ` Pavel Machek
2009-10-26 23:43 ` Greg KH
2009-10-26 23:43 ` Greg KH
2009-10-27 0:17 ` Pavel Machek
2009-10-27 0:17 ` Pavel Machek
2009-10-27 3:00 ` Greg KH
2009-10-27 3:00 ` Greg KH
2009-10-27 8:19 ` Pavel Machek
2009-10-27 8:19 ` Pavel Machek
2009-10-27 16:57 ` Greg KH
2009-10-27 16:57 ` Greg KH
2009-10-27 19:33 ` Pavel Machek
2009-10-27 19:33 ` Pavel Machek
2009-10-27 20:44 ` Greg KH [this message]
2009-10-27 20:44 ` Greg KH
2009-10-27 23:25 ` Pavel Machek
2009-10-27 23:25 ` Pavel Machek
2009-10-28 15:51 ` Greg KH
2009-10-28 15:51 ` Greg KH
2009-10-28 21:56 ` Pavel Machek
2009-10-28 21:56 ` Pavel Machek
2009-10-28 22:11 ` Greg KH
2009-10-28 22:11 ` Greg KH
2009-10-28 22:41 ` Pavel Machek
2009-10-28 22:41 ` Pavel Machek
2009-10-27 22:03 ` Brian Swetland
2009-10-27 22:03 ` Brian Swetland
2009-10-28 21:22 ` Pavel Machek
2009-10-28 21:22 ` Pavel Machek
2009-10-28 8:59 ` Paulius Zaleckas
2009-10-28 8:59 ` Paulius Zaleckas
2009-10-28 9:05 ` Pavel Machek
2009-10-28 9:05 ` Pavel Machek
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=20091027204445.GA28878@kroah.com \
--to=greg@kroah.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/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.