All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Kevin Hilman <khilman@linaro.org>
To: Daniel Walker <dwalker@fifo99.com>
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 10:12:03 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <8738nhnz4s.fsf@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131030232412.GA10229@fifo99.com> (Daniel Walker's message of "Wed, 30 Oct 2013 16:25:32 -0700")

Daniel Walker <dwalker@fifo99.com> writes:

> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 04:08:27PM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> writes:
>> 
>> > I would be very happy to take more code for the older Qualcomm chipset
>> > to enable full functionality for them, but it's been my impression
>> > that far from all that is needed to make it a useful platform is in
>> > the upstream kernel, and there's been no signs of more of it showing
>> > up at least in the last two years.
>> >
>> > So we have a bit of a stalemate here -- the current Qualcomm team
>> > wants to avoid having to deal too much with the legacy platforms --
>> > they are technically quite different from the current platforms and
>> > the divergence makes it hard to deal with supporting it all in a
>> > modern way without risking regressions. I tend to agree with them.
>> 
>> As do I.
>> 
>> > Just like omap split between omap1 and omap2plus, I think it's a time
>> > to create a mach-qcom instead, and move the modern (v7, most likely)
>> > platforms there -- enable them with device tree, modern framework
>> > infrastructure, etc. That way you can keep older platforms in mach-msm
>> > without risk of regressions, and they have a clean base to start on
>> > with their later platforms.
>> 
>> I think this split approach is a good compromise.
>> 
>> If the maintainers of the current older platforms wish to bring them up
>> to modern frameworks, we can consider combining again.  If not, they the
>> older platforms will take the same path as the rest of the older
>> platforms that slowly fade away.
>> 
>
> So the current users of those platforms are, what SOL ?

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.

Kevin

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: khilman@linaro.org (Kevin Hilman)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 2/4] ARM: msm: Remove 7x00 support
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 10:12:03 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <8738nhnz4s.fsf@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131030232412.GA10229@fifo99.com> (Daniel Walker's message of "Wed, 30 Oct 2013 16:25:32 -0700")

Daniel Walker <dwalker@fifo99.com> writes:

> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 04:08:27PM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> writes:
>> 
>> > I would be very happy to take more code for the older Qualcomm chipset
>> > to enable full functionality for them, but it's been my impression
>> > that far from all that is needed to make it a useful platform is in
>> > the upstream kernel, and there's been no signs of more of it showing
>> > up at least in the last two years.
>> >
>> > So we have a bit of a stalemate here -- the current Qualcomm team
>> > wants to avoid having to deal too much with the legacy platforms --
>> > they are technically quite different from the current platforms and
>> > the divergence makes it hard to deal with supporting it all in a
>> > modern way without risking regressions. I tend to agree with them.
>> 
>> As do I.
>> 
>> > Just like omap split between omap1 and omap2plus, I think it's a time
>> > to create a mach-qcom instead, and move the modern (v7, most likely)
>> > platforms there -- enable them with device tree, modern framework
>> > infrastructure, etc. That way you can keep older platforms in mach-msm
>> > without risk of regressions, and they have a clean base to start on
>> > with their later platforms.
>> 
>> I think this split approach is a good compromise.
>> 
>> If the maintainers of the current older platforms wish to bring them up
>> to modern frameworks, we can consider combining again.  If not, they the
>> older platforms will take the same path as the rest of the older
>> platforms that slowly fade away.
>> 
>
> So the current users of those platforms are, what SOL ?

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.

Kevin

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Kevin Hilman <khilman@linaro.org>
To: Daniel Walker <dwalker@fifo99.com>
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 10:12:03 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <8738nhnz4s.fsf@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131030232412.GA10229@fifo99.com> (Daniel Walker's message of "Wed, 30 Oct 2013 16:25:32 -0700")

Daniel Walker <dwalker@fifo99.com> writes:

> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 04:08:27PM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> writes:
>> 
>> > I would be very happy to take more code for the older Qualcomm chipset
>> > to enable full functionality for them, but it's been my impression
>> > that far from all that is needed to make it a useful platform is in
>> > the upstream kernel, and there's been no signs of more of it showing
>> > up at least in the last two years.
>> >
>> > So we have a bit of a stalemate here -- the current Qualcomm team
>> > wants to avoid having to deal too much with the legacy platforms --
>> > they are technically quite different from the current platforms and
>> > the divergence makes it hard to deal with supporting it all in a
>> > modern way without risking regressions. I tend to agree with them.
>> 
>> As do I.
>> 
>> > Just like omap split between omap1 and omap2plus, I think it's a time
>> > to create a mach-qcom instead, and move the modern (v7, most likely)
>> > platforms there -- enable them with device tree, modern framework
>> > infrastructure, etc. That way you can keep older platforms in mach-msm
>> > without risk of regressions, and they have a clean base to start on
>> > with their later platforms.
>> 
>> I think this split approach is a good compromise.
>> 
>> If the maintainers of the current older platforms wish to bring them up
>> to modern frameworks, we can consider combining again.  If not, they the
>> older platforms will take the same path as the rest of the older
>> platforms that slowly fade away.
>> 
>
> So the current users of those platforms are, what SOL ?

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.

Kevin



  parent reply	other threads:[~2013-10-31 17:12 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 [this message]
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=8738nhnz4s.fsf@linaro.org \
    --to=khilman@linaro.org \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=bryanh@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=davidb@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=dwalker@fifo99.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.