All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>
Cc: 'Russell King' <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>,
	linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, ben-linux@fluff.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Samsung Exynos for v3.2
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2011 16:19:35 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <201111061619.36283.arnd@arndb.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4EB61826.4070601@samsung.com>

On Sunday 06 November 2011, Kukjin Kim wrote:
> As I replied, I re-based 'next-samsung-exynos' based on latest mainline.
> 
> So changes since previous pull request:
> 
> The following changes since commit c861cd3e92d92ae946e19099f198018fcb4fd887:
> 
>    Merge branch 'next/devel2' of 
> git://git.linaro.org/people/arnd/arm-soc (2011-11-05 18:21:21 -0700)
> 
> are available in the git repository at:
> 
>    git://github.com/kgene/linux-samsung.git next-samsung-exynos
> 
> Others same, if any problems, please kindly let me know.

Ok, looks good. I'll forward the pull request right away.

One thing that I noticed in your new Kconfig file is this however:

| choice
|         prompt "EXYNOS System Type"
|         default ARCH_EXYNOS4
| config ARCH_EXYNOS4
|         bool "SAMSUNG EXYNOS4"
|         help
|           Samsung EXYNOS4 SoCs based systems
| endchoice

This looks like the idea is to make the future EXYNOS5 and later SoCs a
separate "choice" that is mutually exclusive with EXYNOS4.

This seems to be a significant limitation considering that we are working
hard on making all platforms coexist in the same kernel binary.

Are there strong technical reasons why you could not build EXYNOS4 and
EXYNOS5 into a combined kernel? If this is at all possible, I would
recommend trying hard to do it when you add EXYNOS5.

	Arnd

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [GIT PULL] Samsung Exynos for v3.2
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2011 16:19:35 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <201111061619.36283.arnd@arndb.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4EB61826.4070601@samsung.com>

On Sunday 06 November 2011, Kukjin Kim wrote:
> As I replied, I re-based 'next-samsung-exynos' based on latest mainline.
> 
> So changes since previous pull request:
> 
> The following changes since commit c861cd3e92d92ae946e19099f198018fcb4fd887:
> 
>    Merge branch 'next/devel2' of 
> git://git.linaro.org/people/arnd/arm-soc (2011-11-05 18:21:21 -0700)
> 
> are available in the git repository at:
> 
>    git://github.com/kgene/linux-samsung.git next-samsung-exynos
> 
> Others same, if any problems, please kindly let me know.

Ok, looks good. I'll forward the pull request right away.

One thing that I noticed in your new Kconfig file is this however:

| choice
|         prompt "EXYNOS System Type"
|         default ARCH_EXYNOS4
| config ARCH_EXYNOS4
|         bool "SAMSUNG EXYNOS4"
|         help
|           Samsung EXYNOS4 SoCs based systems
| endchoice

This looks like the idea is to make the future EXYNOS5 and later SoCs a
separate "choice" that is mutually exclusive with EXYNOS4.

This seems to be a significant limitation considering that we are working
hard on making all platforms coexist in the same kernel binary.

Are there strong technical reasons why you could not build EXYNOS4 and
EXYNOS5 into a combined kernel? If this is at all possible, I would
recommend trying hard to do it when you add EXYNOS5.

	Arnd

  reply	other threads:[~2011-11-06 15:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-11-05  0:01 [GIT PULL] Samsung Exynos for v3.2 Kukjin Kim
2011-11-05  0:01 ` Kukjin Kim
2011-11-06  5:16 ` Kukjin Kim
2011-11-06  5:16   ` Kukjin Kim
2011-11-06 15:19   ` Arnd Bergmann [this message]
2011-11-06 15:19     ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-11-08  5:00     ` Kukjin Kim
2011-11-08  5:00       ` 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=201111061619.36283.arnd@arndb.de \
    --to=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=ben-linux@fluff.org \
    --cc=kgene.kim@samsung.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk \
    /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.