From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: grinberg@compulab.co.il (Igor Grinberg) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 11:14:01 +0200 Subject: Update: ARM Sub-Architecture Maintainers workshop at Kernel Summit 2011 In-Reply-To: <4E81CEB8.4090908@compulab.co.il> References: <4E81CEB8.4090908@compulab.co.il> Message-ID: <4E955A59.4090705@compulab.co.il> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 09/27/11 16:25, Igor Grinberg wrote: > On 08/30/11 09:00, Grant Likely wrote: >> >> Agenda proposals (Thanks to Nicolas and Olof): >> - DT bindings for GPIO and pin mux >> - the pin mux subsystem from linusw (especially if it is still RFC by >> then) >> - progress with the single zImage work >> - presentation/status of the DMA and memory management work wrt CMA >> (some SOC specific hacks should go away once this is available) >> - DT porting progress >> - boot architecture status >> - Report from Arnd on experiences from first arm-soc merge window >> - what worked well and where's room for improvement? >> - Any particular SoC workflow that should be tuned to make his life easier? >> - Where are the gaps where he needs help right now? >> - How did it work out for the SoC maintainers? >> >> Still accepting more proposals. Send me the topics you are burning to discuss. > > One of the LPC2011's bottom lines was: > "We need more people involved in ARM maintainership to help > the sub-architecture maintainers do a better job on > review/consolidation/generalization/etc. of the code." > > Despite the major goal of the DT to reduce the SoC and > board specific code to absolute minimum, there will still be cases > (e.g. discrete power management circuitry) when there is no > appropriate DT solution available and the board file > is a necessity. Also there are already many boards that will remain > and will not be converted to DT. > > Bringing all the above together, I'd like to propose a new "job" > for maintaining board specific code on a cross-platform basis. > > Pros: > 1) There might (I have not checked this, but I'm sure there is) be > code in the existing board files (that are not likely to go away > at least in a couple of years) that can be consolidated and > may be even in a cross-platform manner. > 2) Lower the work load from SoC maintainers (that don't have enough > time to care much about the board specific changes). > 3) Some more eyes to review the newly submitted code. > > Cons: > 1) Resulting overhead for the code to go upstream. > 2) Possible addition of merge conflicts. > > > I'd like to hear, what do you think of the above proposal? Any thoughts? Yes? No? Why? WTF? -- Regards, Igor.