From: Daniel Walker <dwalker@fifo99.com>
To: Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>
Cc: David Brown <davidb@codeaurora.org>,
Bryan Huntsman <bryanh@codeaurora.org>,
Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@deeprootsystems.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] ARM: msm: Remove 7x00 support
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 12:03:58 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131029190358.GB13047@fifo99.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOesGMgKbreaqFTGvC=_T6-i7uejfXAPNU8LmMpgDMqeEwYxZQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:39:45AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Daniel Walker <dwalker@fifo99.com> wrote:
>
> > Personally I think splitting mach- stuff isn't very useful or
> > interesting.. There's just no technical reason for it, for example x86
> > and x86_64 was a win from my perspective , there's a lot more reason to
> > keep similar things together than to split things up.
>
> There are definitely valid technical reasons for it; the old and new
> platforms share no code, and the legacy platforms are unlikely to be
> updated to modern infrastructure anytime soon. Other platforms are
> managed in similar manners, such as OMAP, imx/mxs, etc.
Are you speaking from a meta perspective , or you have specific example
in msm code ?
Daniel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: dwalker@fifo99.com (Daniel Walker)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 2/4] ARM: msm: Remove 7x00 support
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 12:03:58 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131029190358.GB13047@fifo99.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOesGMgKbreaqFTGvC=_T6-i7uejfXAPNU8LmMpgDMqeEwYxZQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:39:45AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Daniel Walker <dwalker@fifo99.com> wrote:
>
> > Personally I think splitting mach- stuff isn't very useful or
> > interesting.. There's just no technical reason for it, for example x86
> > and x86_64 was a win from my perspective , there's a lot more reason to
> > keep similar things together than to split things up.
>
> There are definitely valid technical reasons for it; the old and new
> platforms share no code, and the legacy platforms are unlikely to be
> updated to modern infrastructure anytime soon. Other platforms are
> managed in similar manners, such as OMAP, imx/mxs, etc.
Are you speaking from a meta perspective , or you have specific example
in msm code ?
Daniel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-10-29 19:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 66+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-10-28 20:43 [PATCH 0/4] Remove older ARM msm SoC support David Brown
2013-10-28 20:43 ` David Brown
2013-10-28 20:43 ` [PATCH 1/4] ARM: msm: Remove unused board files David Brown
2013-10-28 20:43 ` David Brown
2013-10-28 20:43 ` [PATCH 2/4] ARM: msm: Remove 7x00 support David Brown
2013-10-28 20:43 ` David Brown
2013-10-29 13:21 ` Daniel Walker
2013-10-29 13:21 ` Daniel Walker
2013-10-29 15:37 ` Olof Johansson
2013-10-29 15:37 ` Olof Johansson
2013-10-29 17:08 ` Daniel Walker
2013-10-29 17:08 ` Daniel Walker
2013-10-29 17:39 ` Olof Johansson
2013-10-29 17:39 ` Olof Johansson
2013-10-29 18:40 ` Tony Lindgren
2013-10-29 18:40 ` Tony Lindgren
2013-10-29 19:03 ` Daniel Walker [this message]
2013-10-29 19:03 ` Daniel Walker
2013-10-30 23:08 ` Kevin Hilman
2013-10-30 23:08 ` Kevin Hilman
2013-10-30 23:08 ` Kevin Hilman
2013-10-30 23:25 ` Daniel Walker
2013-10-30 23:25 ` Daniel Walker
2013-10-31 0:36 ` Olof Johansson
2013-10-31 0:36 ` Olof Johansson
2013-10-31 0:36 ` Olof Johansson
2013-10-31 2:45 ` Daniel Walker
2013-10-31 2:45 ` Daniel Walker
2013-10-31 5:19 ` Olof Johansson
2013-10-31 5:19 ` Olof Johansson
2013-10-31 12:07 ` Daniel Walker
2013-10-31 12:07 ` Daniel Walker
2013-10-31 15:53 ` Olof Johansson
2013-10-31 15:53 ` Olof Johansson
2013-10-31 16:33 ` Daniel Walker
2013-10-31 16:33 ` Daniel Walker
2013-10-31 17:12 ` Kevin Hilman
2013-10-31 17:12 ` Kevin Hilman
2013-10-31 17:12 ` Kevin Hilman
2013-10-31 17:35 ` Daniel Walker
2013-10-31 17:35 ` Daniel Walker
2013-10-31 17:35 ` Daniel Walker
2013-10-31 18:51 ` Kevin Hilman
2013-10-31 18:51 ` Kevin Hilman
2013-10-31 18:51 ` Kevin Hilman
2013-10-31 19:39 ` Daniel Walker
2013-10-31 19:39 ` Daniel Walker
2013-10-31 19:23 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-10-31 19:23 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-10-31 19:43 ` Daniel Walker
2013-10-31 19:43 ` Daniel Walker
2013-10-28 20:43 ` [PATCH 3/4] ARM: msm: Remove 7x30 support David Brown
2013-10-28 20:43 ` David Brown
2013-10-29 21:15 ` [PATCH 3/4] ARM: msm: Remove 7x30 supporty Daniel Walker
2013-10-29 21:15 ` Daniel Walker
2013-10-30 13:23 ` Arnd Bergmann
2013-10-30 13:23 ` Arnd Bergmann
2013-10-30 13:23 ` Arnd Bergmann
2013-10-28 20:43 ` [PATCH 4/4] ARM: msm: Remove 8x50 support David Brown
2013-10-28 20:43 ` David Brown
2013-10-29 21:19 ` Daniel Walker
2013-10-29 21:19 ` Daniel Walker
2013-10-30 13:30 ` Arnd Bergmann
2013-10-30 13:30 ` Arnd Bergmann
2013-10-30 15:50 ` Daniel Walker
2013-10-30 15:50 ` Daniel Walker
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=20131029190358.GB13047@fifo99.com \
--to=dwalker@fifo99.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=bryanh@codeaurora.org \
--cc=davidb@codeaurora.org \
--cc=khilman@deeprootsystems.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=olof@lixom.net \
/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.