From: Daniel Walker <dwalker@fifo99.com>
To: Kevin Hilman <khilman@linaro.org>
Cc: Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Bryan Huntsman <bryanh@codeaurora.org>,
Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>,
David Brown <davidb@codeaurora.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] ARM: msm: Remove 7x00 support
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 10:35:06 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131031173506.GA31722@fifo99.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8738nhnz4s.fsf@linaro.org>
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 10:12:03AM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Daniel Walker <dwalker@fifo99.com> writes:
>
>
> No. The idea behind splitting them is to allow current platforms with
> active maintainers to progress without being held back. The older
> platforms can stay and have an opportunity to modernize.
>
> The kernel is a moving target, without some minimal effort to keep
> platforms up to date, the effort to continue to maintain/modernize them
> can become more of a pain than it's worth. If maintainers of these older
> platforms are willing to put in the work, nobody will be SOL. If
> nobody shows interest in modernizing these older platforms (which seems
> to be the case based on the last couple years), then it is reasonable
> IMO for them to fade away slowly.
According to a prior email Tony suggested that OMAP was split for purely
technical reasons.. If code is shared in some way , or has synergies, and there's no
technical reason to split a sub-architecture, then to me there's no win in splitting
things.. It's just more directories, more confusion etc.. The confusion
would come from someone wanting to find the code related to a platform,
but woops there's a bunch of directories, or code flow and how the
sub-architecture is strung together .. Personally I found OMAP very
confusing in that regard.
ARM and the sub-architectures is already confusing I don't think we need
to start compounding the problem by allowing random whatever-you-want
sub-directories from every sub-architecture.
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: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 10:35:06 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131031173506.GA31722@fifo99.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8738nhnz4s.fsf@linaro.org>
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 10:12:03AM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Daniel Walker <dwalker@fifo99.com> writes:
>
>
> No. The idea behind splitting them is to allow current platforms with
> active maintainers to progress without being held back. The older
> platforms can stay and have an opportunity to modernize.
>
> The kernel is a moving target, without some minimal effort to keep
> platforms up to date, the effort to continue to maintain/modernize them
> can become more of a pain than it's worth. If maintainers of these older
> platforms are willing to put in the work, nobody will be SOL. If
> nobody shows interest in modernizing these older platforms (which seems
> to be the case based on the last couple years), then it is reasonable
> IMO for them to fade away slowly.
According to a prior email Tony suggested that OMAP was split for purely
technical reasons.. If code is shared in some way , or has synergies, and there's no
technical reason to split a sub-architecture, then to me there's no win in splitting
things.. It's just more directories, more confusion etc.. The confusion
would come from someone wanting to find the code related to a platform,
but woops there's a bunch of directories, or code flow and how the
sub-architecture is strung together .. Personally I found OMAP very
confusing in that regard.
ARM and the sub-architectures is already confusing I don't think we need
to start compounding the problem by allowing random whatever-you-want
sub-directories from every sub-architecture.
Daniel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Daniel Walker <dwalker@fifo99.com>
To: Kevin Hilman <khilman@linaro.org>
Cc: Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>,
David Brown <davidb@codeaurora.org>,
Bryan Huntsman <bryanh@codeaurora.org>,
Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
"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: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 10:35:06 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131031173506.GA31722@fifo99.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8738nhnz4s.fsf@linaro.org>
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 10:12:03AM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Daniel Walker <dwalker@fifo99.com> writes:
>
>
> No. The idea behind splitting them is to allow current platforms with
> active maintainers to progress without being held back. The older
> platforms can stay and have an opportunity to modernize.
>
> The kernel is a moving target, without some minimal effort to keep
> platforms up to date, the effort to continue to maintain/modernize them
> can become more of a pain than it's worth. If maintainers of these older
> platforms are willing to put in the work, nobody will be SOL. If
> nobody shows interest in modernizing these older platforms (which seems
> to be the case based on the last couple years), then it is reasonable
> IMO for them to fade away slowly.
According to a prior email Tony suggested that OMAP was split for purely
technical reasons.. If code is shared in some way , or has synergies, and there's no
technical reason to split a sub-architecture, then to me there's no win in splitting
things.. It's just more directories, more confusion etc.. The confusion
would come from someone wanting to find the code related to a platform,
but woops there's a bunch of directories, or code flow and how the
sub-architecture is strung together .. Personally I found OMAP very
confusing in that regard.
ARM and the sub-architectures is already confusing I don't think we need
to start compounding the problem by allowing random whatever-you-want
sub-directories from every sub-architecture.
Daniel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-10-31 17:35 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
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 [this message]
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=20131031173506.GA31722@fifo99.com \
--to=dwalker@fifo99.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=bryanh@codeaurora.org \
--cc=davidb@codeaurora.org \
--cc=khilman@linaro.org \
--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.