All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@samsung.com>
To: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, ben-linux@fluff.org,
	'Kyungmin Park' <kyungmin.park@samsung.com>,
	'Mauro Carvalho Chehab' <mchehab@infradead.org>,
	'Nick Pelling' <nickpelling@nanodome.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] [media] s5p-fimc: Remove to support fimc for S5PC100
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 14:10:43 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4DD265C3.9040101@samsung.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <002001cc1399$02964bb0$07c2e310$%kim@samsung.com>

On 05/16/2011 09:15 AM, Kukjin Kim wrote:
> Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
> 
>> Shouldn't there be some deprecation period for whole s5pc100 support
> removal ?
> 
> This is that. But I know, there is no time...
> 
>> It looks a bit rude to me that suddenly whole support for the SoC is
> vanished.
> 
> Hmm...what did you think about my previous comments: 'removing some
> "mach-s5pxxxx"s'?

I would expect one kernel release period of so notice for such a change.
But it doesn't have to be true in this specific case.

> 
>> I know at least one active user of mainline FIMC driver @ s5pc100.
> 
> Do you _really_ want to keep it in later mainline?

I don't personally have interest in maintaining this driver for s5pc100.
It just adds unnecessary complexity to my work and in fact I have limited
possibilities now to test the driver on s5pc100.
But if there are users and it really doesn't cost much to keep the support
for s5pc100 why bother to remove it?  Just to get rid of one mach-* directory ? 

> 
> I was not sure we should keep continually 6442 and C100 in mainline when I
> decided to removing 'mach-s5pxxxx'.

I really don't care about 6442, but what's the problem with s5pc100 ?
Is it being discontinued ? Or there is little users of it ?

I would much more like to see attempts to consolidate the code rather than
simply removing it.


Regards,
-- 
Sylwester Nawrocki
Samsung Poland R&D Center

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: s.nawrocki@samsung.com (Sylwester Nawrocki)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 3/7] [media] s5p-fimc: Remove to support fimc for S5PC100
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 14:10:43 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4DD265C3.9040101@samsung.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <002001cc1399$02964bb0$07c2e310$%kim@samsung.com>

On 05/16/2011 09:15 AM, Kukjin Kim wrote:
> Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
> 
>> Shouldn't there be some deprecation period for whole s5pc100 support
> removal ?
> 
> This is that. But I know, there is no time...
> 
>> It looks a bit rude to me that suddenly whole support for the SoC is
> vanished.
> 
> Hmm...what did you think about my previous comments: 'removing some
> "mach-s5pxxxx"s'?

I would expect one kernel release period of so notice for such a change.
But it doesn't have to be true in this specific case.

> 
>> I know at least one active user of mainline FIMC driver @ s5pc100.
> 
> Do you _really_ want to keep it in later mainline?

I don't personally have interest in maintaining this driver for s5pc100.
It just adds unnecessary complexity to my work and in fact I have limited
possibilities now to test the driver on s5pc100.
But if there are users and it really doesn't cost much to keep the support
for s5pc100 why bother to remove it?  Just to get rid of one mach-* directory ? 

> 
> I was not sure we should keep continually 6442 and C100 in mainline when I
> decided to removing 'mach-s5pxxxx'.

I really don't care about 6442, but what's the problem with s5pc100 ?
Is it being discontinued ? Or there is little users of it ?

I would much more like to see attempts to consolidate the code rather than
simply removing it.


Regards,
-- 
Sylwester Nawrocki
Samsung Poland R&D Center

  reply	other threads:[~2011-05-17 12:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 53+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-05-12  1:11 [PATCH 0/7] ARM: Removing ARCH_S5PC100 Kukjin Kim
2011-05-12  1:11 ` Kukjin Kim
2011-05-12  1:11 ` [PATCH 2/7] ASoC: Remove to support sound for S5PC100 Kukjin Kim
2011-05-12  1:11   ` Kukjin Kim
2011-05-12  6:11   ` Jassi Brar
2011-05-12  6:11     ` Jassi Brar
2011-05-12  7:53     ` Kukjin Kim
2011-05-12  7:53       ` Kukjin Kim
2011-05-12  8:38       ` Jassi Brar
2011-05-12  8:38         ` Jassi Brar
2011-05-16  7:19         ` Kukjin Kim
2011-05-16  7:19           ` Kukjin Kim
2011-05-16  7:28           ` Jassi Brar
2011-05-16  7:28             ` Jassi Brar
2011-05-12  1:11 ` [PATCH 3/7] [media] s5p-fimc: Remove to support fimc " Kukjin Kim
2011-05-12  1:11   ` Kukjin Kim
2011-05-12  9:23   ` Sylwester Nawrocki
2011-05-12  9:23     ` Sylwester Nawrocki
2011-05-16  7:15     ` Kukjin Kim
2011-05-16  7:15       ` Kukjin Kim
2011-05-17 12:10       ` Sylwester Nawrocki [this message]
2011-05-17 12:10         ` Sylwester Nawrocki
2011-05-18  8:57         ` Kukjin Kim
2011-05-18  8:57           ` Kukjin Kim
2011-05-18 11:04   ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2011-05-18 11:04     ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2011-05-12  1:11 ` [PATCH 4/7] mtd: OneNAND: Remove to support onenand " Kukjin Kim
2011-05-12  1:11   ` Kukjin Kim
2011-05-12  1:11 ` [PATCH 5/7] tty: Remove to support serial " Kukjin Kim
2011-05-12  1:11   ` Kukjin Kim
2011-05-12  1:11 ` [PATCH 6/7] video: s3c-fb: Remove to support fb " Kukjin Kim
2011-05-12  1:11   ` Kukjin Kim
2011-05-12  1:11 ` [PATCH 7/7] libata: Remove to support pata " Kukjin Kim
2011-05-12  1:11   ` Kukjin Kim
2011-05-12  1:26   ` Jeff Garzik
2011-05-12  1:26     ` Jeff Garzik
2011-05-13 12:55 ` [PATCH 0/7] ARM: Removing ARCH_S5PC100 Vasily Khoruzhick
2011-05-13 12:55   ` Vasily Khoruzhick
2011-05-16 16:48   ` Marek Szyprowski
2011-05-16 16:48     ` Marek Szyprowski
2011-05-18  8:56     ` Kukjin Kim
2011-05-18  8:56       ` Kukjin Kim
2011-05-16 17:28 ` Nick Pelling
2011-05-18  8:53   ` Kukjin Kim
2011-05-18  9:32     ` Vasily Khoruzhick
2011-05-17 12:19 ` Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
2011-05-17 12:19   ` Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
2011-05-18  8:44   ` Kukjin Kim
2011-05-18  8:44     ` Kukjin Kim
2011-05-18  9:36     ` Yauhen Kharuzhy
2011-05-18  9:36       ` Yauhen Kharuzhy
2011-05-18  9:36       ` Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
2011-05-18  9:36         ` Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD

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=4DD265C3.9040101@samsung.com \
    --to=s.nawrocki@samsung.com \
    --cc=ben-linux@fluff.org \
    --cc=kgene.kim@samsung.com \
    --cc=kyungmin.park@samsung.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mchehab@infradead.org \
    --cc=nickpelling@nanodome.com \
    /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.