From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Simon Horman Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 01:02:38 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/15] ARM: shmobile: Remove AP4EVB board support Message-Id: <20130618010238.GC30216@verge.net.au> List-Id: References: <1371106793-25071-1-git-send-email-horms+renesas@verge.net.au> <201306141629.26580.arnd@arndb.de> <201306172220.54015.arnd@arndb.de> In-Reply-To: <201306172220.54015.arnd@arndb.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 10:20:53PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Monday 17 June 2013, Magnus Damm wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 11:29 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > On Friday 14 June 2013, Magnus Damm wrote: > > >> > If still possible, would be good to delay removing this board until we > > >> > complete our discussion. > > >> > > >> If fine with keeping the board if someone can show me progress in the > > >> area of INTC DT support. Recently I have not seen anything. > > > > > > As mentioned the last time we discussed this, I'm fine with using the > > > existing code and "legacy" irqdomain for the older INTC implementations, > > > as long as all the new ones can use your new generic code. > > > > Thanks for explaining once again. Do you have any issues with us > > reducing the number of supported boards and/or SoCs? > > No, I'm sure you know who the users of the board files in upstream kernels > are. If someone comes up with a good reason why one of the files is > needed after all, we can always revert the removal at a later point. > > I'm definitely in favor of removing known unused code that gets in the way > of progress and adding clean code as quickly as we can review it. Hi Arnd, thanks for clarifying this. I am in complete agreement. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: horms@verge.net.au (Simon Horman) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 10:02:38 +0900 Subject: [PATCH 14/15] ARM: shmobile: Remove AP4EVB board support In-Reply-To: <201306172220.54015.arnd@arndb.de> References: <1371106793-25071-1-git-send-email-horms+renesas@verge.net.au> <201306141629.26580.arnd@arndb.de> <201306172220.54015.arnd@arndb.de> Message-ID: <20130618010238.GC30216@verge.net.au> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 10:20:53PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Monday 17 June 2013, Magnus Damm wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 11:29 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > On Friday 14 June 2013, Magnus Damm wrote: > > >> > If still possible, would be good to delay removing this board until we > > >> > complete our discussion. > > >> > > >> If fine with keeping the board if someone can show me progress in the > > >> area of INTC DT support. Recently I have not seen anything. > > > > > > As mentioned the last time we discussed this, I'm fine with using the > > > existing code and "legacy" irqdomain for the older INTC implementations, > > > as long as all the new ones can use your new generic code. > > > > Thanks for explaining once again. Do you have any issues with us > > reducing the number of supported boards and/or SoCs? > > No, I'm sure you know who the users of the board files in upstream kernels > are. If someone comes up with a good reason why one of the files is > needed after all, we can always revert the removal at a later point. > > I'm definitely in favor of removing known unused code that gets in the way > of progress and adding clean code as quickly as we can review it. Hi Arnd, thanks for clarifying this. I am in complete agreement.