From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Walker Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] ARM: msm: Remove 7x00 support Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 12:43:46 -0700 Message-ID: <20131031194346.GC31722@fifo99.com> References: <1382993006-27359-1-git-send-email-davidb@codeaurora.org> <1382993006-27359-3-git-send-email-davidb@codeaurora.org> <20131029132043.GA28165@fifo99.com> <87ob66nyqc.fsf@linaro.org> <20131030232412.GA10229@fifo99.com> <8738nhnz4s.fsf@linaro.org> <20131031173506.GA31722@fifo99.com> <20131031192330.GG16735@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131031192330.GG16735@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Russell King - ARM Linux Cc: Kevin Hilman , Olof Johansson , David Brown , Bryan Huntsman , Arnd Bergmann , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" List-Id: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 07:23:30PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 10:35:06AM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote: > > 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. > > Confusing? > > I'm not sure about that. It's actually really simple from my perspective: > > arch/arm - the ARM 32-bit architecture > > arch/arm/mach-* - support for a single SoC or a group of similar SoCs > > arch/arm/plat-* - common support for a set of dissimilar SoCs which want > to share code between themselves > > How is that confusing? > It's the relationship between the arch/arm/mach-* and the arch/arm/plat-* and which ones connect with each other etc, and how the connection was actually done.. For me as a developer I found it confusing vs something that was fully integrated. Daniel From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: dwalker@fifo99.com (Daniel Walker) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 12:43:46 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 2/4] ARM: msm: Remove 7x00 support In-Reply-To: <20131031192330.GG16735@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1382993006-27359-1-git-send-email-davidb@codeaurora.org> <1382993006-27359-3-git-send-email-davidb@codeaurora.org> <20131029132043.GA28165@fifo99.com> <87ob66nyqc.fsf@linaro.org> <20131030232412.GA10229@fifo99.com> <8738nhnz4s.fsf@linaro.org> <20131031173506.GA31722@fifo99.com> <20131031192330.GG16735@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <20131031194346.GC31722@fifo99.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 07:23:30PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 10:35:06AM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote: > > 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. > > Confusing? > > I'm not sure about that. It's actually really simple from my perspective: > > arch/arm - the ARM 32-bit architecture > > arch/arm/mach-* - support for a single SoC or a group of similar SoCs > > arch/arm/plat-* - common support for a set of dissimilar SoCs which want > to share code between themselves > > How is that confusing? > It's the relationship between the arch/arm/mach-* and the arch/arm/plat-* and which ones connect with each other etc, and how the connection was actually done.. For me as a developer I found it confusing vs something that was fully integrated. Daniel