46dcfc8 (ARM: Update mach-types) removes used machine types

46dcfc8 (ARM: Update mach-types) removes used machine types

[Uwe Kleine-König]

Hello Russell,

your commit 46dcfc8 that is in today's next among other changes does:

-eukrea_cpuimx25sd      MACH_EUKREA_CPUIMX25    EUKREA_CPUIMX25 2820
-eukrea_cpuimx35sd      MACH_EUKREA_CPUIMX35    EUKREA_CPUIMX35 2821

These two are both marked as "mainlined" on
http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/machines/ and both are actually
used (arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-{eukrea_cpuimx25,cpuimx35.c})

Can you please add them back? Maybe it's worth to double-check the other
deletions?!

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-K?nig            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |

46dcfc8 (ARM: Update mach-types) removes used machine types

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 10:10:00AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> Hello Russell,
> 
> your commit 46dcfc8 that is in today's next among other changes does:
> 
> -eukrea_cpuimx25sd      MACH_EUKREA_CPUIMX25    EUKREA_CPUIMX25 2820
> -eukrea_cpuimx35sd      MACH_EUKREA_CPUIMX35    EUKREA_CPUIMX35 2821
> 
> These two are both marked as "mainlined" on
> http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/machines/ and both are actually
> used (arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-{eukrea_cpuimx25,cpuimx35.c})
> 
> Can you please add them back? Maybe it's worth to double-check the other
> deletions?!

No.  They're removed because they're broken (look at them) - I've added
additional checks so I don't have to waste _significant_ time fixing
the entries time and time again.

The requirement is that the machine_is_xxx() must match the MACH_xxx
parts.  If they don't, they will not exist in future updates.

46dcfc8 (ARM: Update mach-types) removes used machine types

[Uwe Kleine-König]

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 09:17:49AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 10:10:00AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> > Hello Russell,
> > 
> > your commit 46dcfc8 that is in today's next among other changes does:
> > 
> > -eukrea_cpuimx25sd      MACH_EUKREA_CPUIMX25    EUKREA_CPUIMX25 2820
> > -eukrea_cpuimx35sd      MACH_EUKREA_CPUIMX35    EUKREA_CPUIMX35 2821
> > 
> > These two are both marked as "mainlined" on
> > http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/machines/ and both are actually
> > used (arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-{eukrea_cpuimx25,cpuimx35.c})
> > 
> > Can you please add them back? Maybe it's worth to double-check the other
> > deletions?!
> 
> No.  They're removed because they're broken (look at them) - I've added
> additional checks so I don't have to waste _significant_ time fixing
> the entries time and time again.
> 
> The requirement is that the machine_is_xxx() must match the MACH_xxx
> parts.  If they don't, they will not exist in future updates.
Ah, I wasn't aware of that requirement.

Eric, these machine types are owned by you. Do you care to follow up?

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-K?nig            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |

46dcfc8 (ARM: Update mach-types) removes used machine types

[Marek Vasut]

On Monday, August 22, 2011 10:33:29 AM Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 09:17:49AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 10:10:00AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> > > Hello Russell,
> > > 
> > > your commit 46dcfc8 that is in today's next among other changes does:
> > > 
> > > -eukrea_cpuimx25sd      MACH_EUKREA_CPUIMX25    EUKREA_CPUIMX25 2820
> > > -eukrea_cpuimx35sd      MACH_EUKREA_CPUIMX35    EUKREA_CPUIMX35 2821
> > > 
> > > These two are both marked as "mainlined" on
> > > http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/machines/ and both are actually
> > > used (arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-{eukrea_cpuimx25,cpuimx35.c})
> > > 
> > > Can you please add them back? Maybe it's worth to double-check the
> > > other deletions?!
> > 
> > No.  They're removed because they're broken (look at them) - I've added
> > additional checks so I don't have to waste _significant_ time fixing
> > the entries time and time again.
> > 
> > The requirement is that the machine_is_xxx() must match the MACH_xxx
> > parts.  If they don't, they will not exist in future updates.
> 
> Ah, I wasn't aware of that requirement.
> 
> Eric, these machine types are owned by you. Do you care to follow up?

Hi Russell,

maybe it'd be worth at least pinging the people before you kill off the machine 
so they can come up with fix?

Cheers
> 
> Best regards
> Uwe

46dcfc8 (ARM: Update mach-types) removes used machine types

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 01:18:25PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On Monday, August 22, 2011 10:33:29 AM Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 09:17:49AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 10:10:00AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> > > > Hello Russell,
> > > > 
> > > > your commit 46dcfc8 that is in today's next among other changes does:
> > > > 
> > > > -eukrea_cpuimx25sd      MACH_EUKREA_CPUIMX25    EUKREA_CPUIMX25 2820
> > > > -eukrea_cpuimx35sd      MACH_EUKREA_CPUIMX35    EUKREA_CPUIMX35 2821
> > > > 
> > > > These two are both marked as "mainlined" on
> > > > http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/machines/ and both are actually
> > > > used (arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-{eukrea_cpuimx25,cpuimx35.c})
> > > > 
> > > > Can you please add them back? Maybe it's worth to double-check the
> > > > other deletions?!
> > > 
> > > No.  They're removed because they're broken (look at them) - I've added
> > > additional checks so I don't have to waste _significant_ time fixing
> > > the entries time and time again.
> > > 
> > > The requirement is that the machine_is_xxx() must match the MACH_xxx
> > > parts.  If they don't, they will not exist in future updates.
> > 
> > Ah, I wasn't aware of that requirement.
> > 
> > Eric, these machine types are owned by you. Do you care to follow up?
> 
> Hi Russell,
> 
> maybe it'd be worth at least pinging the people before you kill off the machine 
> so they can come up with fix?

I've no idea which get killed off, sorry.

46dcfc8 (ARM: Update mach-types) removes used machine types

[Marek Vasut]

On Monday, August 22, 2011 02:49:30 PM Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 01:18:25PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > On Monday, August 22, 2011 10:33:29 AM Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 09:17:49AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 10:10:00AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> > > > > Hello Russell,
> > > > > 
> > > > > your commit 46dcfc8 that is in today's next among other changes
> > > > > does:
> > > > > 
> > > > > -eukrea_cpuimx25sd      MACH_EUKREA_CPUIMX25    EUKREA_CPUIMX25
> > > > > 2820 -eukrea_cpuimx35sd      MACH_EUKREA_CPUIMX35   
> > > > > EUKREA_CPUIMX35 2821
> > > > > 
> > > > > These two are both marked as "mainlined" on
> > > > > http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/machines/ and both are
> > > > > actually used
> > > > > (arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-{eukrea_cpuimx25,cpuimx35.c})
> > > > > 
> > > > > Can you please add them back? Maybe it's worth to double-check the
> > > > > other deletions?!
> > > > 
> > > > No.  They're removed because they're broken (look at them) - I've
> > > > added additional checks so I don't have to waste _significant_ time
> > > > fixing the entries time and time again.
> > > > 
> > > > The requirement is that the machine_is_xxx() must match the MACH_xxx
> > > > parts.  If they don't, they will not exist in future updates.
> > > 
> > > Ah, I wasn't aware of that requirement.
> > > 
> > > Eric, these machine types are owned by you. Do you care to follow up?
> > 
> > Hi Russell,
> > 
> > maybe it'd be worth at least pinging the people before you kill off the
> > machine so they can come up with fix?
> 
> I've no idea which get killed off, sorry.

This EUKREA thing from what I understood was removed from the machine database 
and broke things.

46dcfc8 (ARM: Update mach-types) removes used machine types

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 01:49:30PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 01:18:25PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > On Monday, August 22, 2011 10:33:29 AM Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 09:17:49AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 10:10:00AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> > > > > Hello Russell,
> > > > > 
> > > > > your commit 46dcfc8 that is in today's next among other changes does:
> > > > > 
> > > > > -eukrea_cpuimx25sd      MACH_EUKREA_CPUIMX25    EUKREA_CPUIMX25 2820
> > > > > -eukrea_cpuimx35sd      MACH_EUKREA_CPUIMX35    EUKREA_CPUIMX35 2821
> > > > > 
> > > > > These two are both marked as "mainlined" on
> > > > > http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/machines/ and both are actually
> > > > > used (arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-{eukrea_cpuimx25,cpuimx35.c})
> > > > > 
> > > > > Can you please add them back? Maybe it's worth to double-check the
> > > > > other deletions?!
> > > > 
> > > > No.  They're removed because they're broken (look at them) - I've added
> > > > additional checks so I don't have to waste _significant_ time fixing
> > > > the entries time and time again.
> > > > 
> > > > The requirement is that the machine_is_xxx() must match the MACH_xxx
> > > > parts.  If they don't, they will not exist in future updates.
> > > 
> > > Ah, I wasn't aware of that requirement.
> > > 
> > > Eric, these machine types are owned by you. Do you care to follow up?
> > 
> > Hi Russell,
> > 
> > maybe it'd be worth at least pinging the people before you kill off the machine 
> > so they can come up with fix?
> 
> I've no idea which get killed off, sorry.

... and how about people *TALK* to me when they fuck up their entries in
the machine database.

TBH, the way I feel _right_ _now_ over it is that people who don't get
what they deserve, and their stuff breaks.  Again, my perspective is
that that is their own fault, and they will have to live with it.

Given all this whinging - first about people throwing stuff into the
kernel without the corresponding stuff in the mach-types file first, and
now this, I'm *seriously* considering killing the damned thing off
completely and not doing any further updates to the file anymore.  It's
just *far* too much hastle to deal with given all the absolute shite
that's now there.

And if I'm not allowed to sort it out in an automated way then I'm
just going to give up with it and shut the entire thing down.

46dcfc8 (ARM: Update mach-types) removes used machine types

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 02:54:55PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On Monday, August 22, 2011 02:49:30 PM Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 01:18:25PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > On Monday, August 22, 2011 10:33:29 AM Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 09:17:49AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 10:10:00AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> > > > > > Hello Russell,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > your commit 46dcfc8 that is in today's next among other changes
> > > > > > does:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > -eukrea_cpuimx25sd      MACH_EUKREA_CPUIMX25    EUKREA_CPUIMX25
> > > > > > 2820 -eukrea_cpuimx35sd      MACH_EUKREA_CPUIMX35   
> > > > > > EUKREA_CPUIMX35 2821
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > These two are both marked as "mainlined" on
> > > > > > http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/machines/ and both are
> > > > > > actually used
> > > > > > (arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-{eukrea_cpuimx25,cpuimx35.c})
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Can you please add them back? Maybe it's worth to double-check the
> > > > > > other deletions?!
> > > > > 
> > > > > No.  They're removed because they're broken (look at them) - I've
> > > > > added additional checks so I don't have to waste _significant_ time
> > > > > fixing the entries time and time again.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The requirement is that the machine_is_xxx() must match the MACH_xxx
> > > > > parts.  If they don't, they will not exist in future updates.
> > > > 
> > > > Ah, I wasn't aware of that requirement.
> > > > 
> > > > Eric, these machine types are owned by you. Do you care to follow up?
> > > 
> > > Hi Russell,
> > > 
> > > maybe it'd be worth at least pinging the people before you kill off the
> > > machine so they can come up with fix?
> > 
> > I've no idea which get killed off, sorry.
> 
> This EUKREA thing from what I understood was removed from the machine database 
> and broke things.

So?  The entry was broken.  The entry was changed after submission.  There
was no communication with me to fix things up.  Therefore I _do_ _not_
_care_ about it.

46dcfc8 (ARM: Update mach-types) removes used machine types

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 01:56:53PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 02:54:55PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > On Monday, August 22, 2011 02:49:30 PM Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 01:18:25PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > > On Monday, August 22, 2011 10:33:29 AM Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 09:17:49AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 10:10:00AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> > > > > > > Hello Russell,
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > your commit 46dcfc8 that is in today's next among other changes
> > > > > > > does:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > -eukrea_cpuimx25sd      MACH_EUKREA_CPUIMX25    EUKREA_CPUIMX25
> > > > > > > 2820 -eukrea_cpuimx35sd      MACH_EUKREA_CPUIMX35   
> > > > > > > EUKREA_CPUIMX35 2821
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > These two are both marked as "mainlined" on
> > > > > > > http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/machines/ and both are
> > > > > > > actually used
> > > > > > > (arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-{eukrea_cpuimx25,cpuimx35.c})
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Can you please add them back? Maybe it's worth to double-check the
> > > > > > > other deletions?!
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > No.  They're removed because they're broken (look at them) - I've
> > > > > > added additional checks so I don't have to waste _significant_ time
> > > > > > fixing the entries time and time again.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The requirement is that the machine_is_xxx() must match the MACH_xxx
> > > > > > parts.  If they don't, they will not exist in future updates.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Ah, I wasn't aware of that requirement.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Eric, these machine types are owned by you. Do you care to follow up?
> > > > 
> > > > Hi Russell,
> > > > 
> > > > maybe it'd be worth at least pinging the people before you kill off the
> > > > machine so they can come up with fix?
> > > 
> > > I've no idea which get killed off, sorry.
> > 
> > This EUKREA thing from what I understood was removed from the machine database 
> > and broke things.
> 
> So?  The entry was broken.  The entry was changed after submission.  There
> was no communication with me to fix things up.  Therefore I _do_ _not_
> _care_ about it.

For further reading, see:
http://lists.arm.linux.org.uk/lurker/message/20110815.085325.ae6ee07d.en.html

46dcfc8 (ARM: Update mach-types) removes used machine types

[Eric Bénard]

Hi Russell,

Le 22/08/2011 14:56, Russell King - ARM Linux a ?crit :
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 02:54:55PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> On Monday, August 22, 2011 02:49:30 PM Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 01:18:25PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>>> On Monday, August 22, 2011 10:33:29 AM Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 09:17:49AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 10:10:00AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
>>>>>>> Hello Russell,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> your commit 46dcfc8 that is in today's next among other changes
>>>>>>> does:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -eukrea_cpuimx25sd      MACH_EUKREA_CPUIMX25    EUKREA_CPUIMX25
>>>>>>> 2820 -eukrea_cpuimx35sd      MACH_EUKREA_CPUIMX35
>>>>>>> EUKREA_CPUIMX35 2821
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> These two are both marked as "mainlined" on
>>>>>>> http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/machines/ and both are
>>>>>>> actually used
>>>>>>> (arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-{eukrea_cpuimx25,cpuimx35.c})
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can you please add them back? Maybe it's worth to double-check the
>>>>>>> other deletions?!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No.  They're removed because they're broken (look at them) - I've
>>>>>> added additional checks so I don't have to waste _significant_ time
>>>>>> fixing the entries time and time again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The requirement is that the machine_is_xxx() must match the MACH_xxx
>>>>>> parts.  If they don't, they will not exist in future updates.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, I wasn't aware of that requirement.
>>>>>
>>>>> Eric, these machine types are owned by you. Do you care to follow up?
>>>>
>>>> Hi Russell,
>>>>
>>>> maybe it'd be worth at least pinging the people before you kill off the
>>>> machine so they can come up with fix?
>>>
>>> I've no idea which get killed off, sorry.
>>
>> This EUKREA thing from what I understood was removed from the machine database
>> and broke things.
>
> So?  The entry was broken.  The entry was changed after submission.  There
> was no communication with me to fix things up.  Therefore I _do_ _not_
> _care_ about it.
>
I did this mistake quite a long time ago just after submission.
I'll come back to you to fix this in a short time, sorry for the annoyance.

Thanks,
Eric

46dcfc8 (ARM: Update mach-types) removes used machine types

[Marek Vasut]

On Monday, August 22, 2011 03:01:19 PM Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 01:56:53PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 02:54:55PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > On Monday, August 22, 2011 02:49:30 PM Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 01:18:25PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, August 22, 2011 10:33:29 AM Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 09:17:49AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux 
wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 10:10:00AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hello Russell,
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > your commit 46dcfc8 that is in today's next among other
> > > > > > > > changes does:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > -eukrea_cpuimx25sd      MACH_EUKREA_CPUIMX25   
> > > > > > > > EUKREA_CPUIMX25 2820 -eukrea_cpuimx35sd     
> > > > > > > > MACH_EUKREA_CPUIMX35
> > > > > > > > EUKREA_CPUIMX35 2821
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > These two are both marked as "mainlined" on
> > > > > > > > http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/machines/ and both are
> > > > > > > > actually used
> > > > > > > > (arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-{eukrea_cpuimx25,cpuimx35.c})
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Can you please add them back? Maybe it's worth to
> > > > > > > > double-check the other deletions?!
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > No.  They're removed because they're broken (look at them) -
> > > > > > > I've added additional checks so I don't have to waste
> > > > > > > _significant_ time fixing the entries time and time again.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > The requirement is that the machine_is_xxx() must match the
> > > > > > > MACH_xxx parts.  If they don't, they will not exist in future
> > > > > > > updates.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Ah, I wasn't aware of that requirement.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Eric, these machine types are owned by you. Do you care to follow
> > > > > > up?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Hi Russell,
> > > > > 
> > > > > maybe it'd be worth at least pinging the people before you kill off
> > > > > the machine so they can come up with fix?
> > > > 
> > > > I've no idea which get killed off, sorry.
> > > 
> > > This EUKREA thing from what I understood was removed from the machine
> > > database and broke things.
> > 
> > So?  The entry was broken.  The entry was changed after submission. 
> > There was no communication with me to fix things up.  Therefore I _do_
> > _not_ _care_ about it.
> 
> For further reading, see:
> http://lists.arm.linux.org.uk/lurker/message/20110815.085325.ae6ee07d.en.ht
> ml

Russell, calm down please.

Maybe it'd be better to just email the people with broken stuff, then wait ... if 
they don't reply in a week (two weeks?) then remove their stuff. And make that a 
policy.

What do you think ?

Cheers

46dcfc8 (ARM: Update mach-types) removes used machine types

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 03:16:00PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On Monday, August 22, 2011 03:01:19 PM Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > For further reading, see:
> > http://lists.arm.linux.org.uk/lurker/message/20110815.085325.ae6ee07d.en.ht
> > ml
> 
> Russell, calm down please.
> 
> Maybe it'd be better to just email the people with broken stuff, then
> wait ... if they don't reply in a week (two weeks?) then remove their
> stuff. And make that a policy.
> 
> What do you think ?

Who do I email?  Which entries are causing problems?  That's the whole
bloody point.

There's just far too much of it.  The amount of effort required to sort
through this file each time it needs to be updated has become *excessive*.
The amount of effort required to go through the file and identify which
entries are broken is *excessive*.  The amount of effort required to
find who to email is *excessive*.

I don't have a few days to do that - and I'm not going to repeat it
every time the file needs to be updated anymore.

So either I drop the change and we go back to having gplugd broken, or
we keep the change and have the Eureka stuff broken.  Anything else is
far too much hastle.

Given that the gplugd folk have sorted out their problems, and its the
Eureka stuff which doesn't conform, I'd rather that Eureka was broken
rather than gplugd.

46dcfc8 (ARM: Update mach-types) removes used machine types

[Marek Vasut]

On Monday, August 22, 2011 03:27:19 PM Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 03:16:00PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > On Monday, August 22, 2011 03:01:19 PM Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > For further reading, see:
> > > http://lists.arm.linux.org.uk/lurker/message/20110815.085325.ae6ee07d.e
> > > n.ht ml
> > 
> > Russell, calm down please.
> > 
> > Maybe it'd be better to just email the people with broken stuff, then
> > wait ... if they don't reply in a week (two weeks?) then remove their
> > stuff. And make that a policy.
> > 
> > What do you think ?
> 
> Who do I email?  Which entries are causing problems?  That's the whole
> bloody point.

Isn't the email in your database? You can't just script that ?

> 
> There's just far too much of it.  The amount of effort required to sort
> through this file each time it needs to be updated has become *excessive*.
> The amount of effort required to go through the file and identify which
> entries are broken is *excessive*.  The amount of effort required to
> find who to email is *excessive*.

Why not write a script for that ?

> 
> I don't have a few days to do that - and I'm not going to repeat it
> every time the file needs to be updated anymore.
> 
> So either I drop the change and we go back to having gplugd broken, or
> we keep the change and have the Eureka stuff broken.  Anything else is
> far too much hastle.
> 
> Given that the gplugd folk have sorted out their problems, and its the
> Eureka stuff which doesn't conform, I'd rather that Eureka was broken
> rather than gplugd.

Well then can't you split the change in two to avoid breaking both? We don't 
want to introduce breakage, do we.

46dcfc8 (ARM: Update mach-types) removes used machine types

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 03:30:41PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On Monday, August 22, 2011 03:27:19 PM Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 03:16:00PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > On Monday, August 22, 2011 03:01:19 PM Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > > For further reading, see:
> > > > http://lists.arm.linux.org.uk/lurker/message/20110815.085325.ae6ee07d.e
> > > > n.ht ml
> > > 
> > > Russell, calm down please.
> > > 
> > > Maybe it'd be better to just email the people with broken stuff, then
> > > wait ... if they don't reply in a week (two weeks?) then remove their
> > > stuff. And make that a policy.
> > > 
> > > What do you think ?
> > 
> > Who do I email?  Which entries are causing problems?  That's the whole
> > bloody point.
> 
> Isn't the email in your database? You can't just script that ?
> 
> > 
> > There's just far too much of it.  The amount of effort required to sort
> > through this file each time it needs to be updated has become *excessive*.
> > The amount of effort required to go through the file and identify which
> > entries are broken is *excessive*.  The amount of effort required to
> > find who to email is *excessive*.
> 
> Why not write a script for that ?

No, I don't have the time at present.

46dcfc8 (ARM: Update mach-types) removes used machine types

[Marek Vasut]

On Monday, August 22, 2011 03:32:42 PM Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 03:30:41PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > On Monday, August 22, 2011 03:27:19 PM Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 03:16:00PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > > On Monday, August 22, 2011 03:01:19 PM Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > > > For further reading, see:
> > > > > http://lists.arm.linux.org.uk/lurker/message/20110815.085325.ae6ee0
> > > > > 7d.e n.ht ml
> > > > 
> > > > Russell, calm down please.
> > > > 
> > > > Maybe it'd be better to just email the people with broken stuff, then
> > > > wait ... if they don't reply in a week (two weeks?) then remove their
> > > > stuff. And make that a policy.
> > > > 
> > > > What do you think ?
> > > 
> > > Who do I email?  Which entries are causing problems?  That's the whole
> > > bloody point.
> > 
> > Isn't the email in your database? You can't just script that ?
> > 
> > > There's just far too much of it.  The amount of effort required to sort
> > > through this file each time it needs to be updated has become
> > > *excessive*. The amount of effort required to go through the file and
> > > identify which entries are broken is *excessive*.  The amount of
> > > effort required to find who to email is *excessive*.
> > 
> > Why not write a script for that ?
> 
> No, I don't have the time at present.

You're the head maintainer here and ARM is a rising architecture. If you can't 
cope with that, you have a growing community of very competent people here. 
Maybe someone will be willing to take over eventually? It'll relieve some 
pressure from you too, what do you think?

46dcfc8 (ARM: Update mach-types) removes used machine types

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 03:36:12PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On Monday, August 22, 2011 03:32:42 PM Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 03:30:41PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > On Monday, August 22, 2011 03:27:19 PM Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 03:16:00PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, August 22, 2011 03:01:19 PM Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > > > > For further reading, see:
> > > > > > http://lists.arm.linux.org.uk/lurker/message/20110815.085325.ae6ee0
> > > > > > 7d.e n.ht ml
> > > > > 
> > > > > Russell, calm down please.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Maybe it'd be better to just email the people with broken stuff, then
> > > > > wait ... if they don't reply in a week (two weeks?) then remove their
> > > > > stuff. And make that a policy.
> > > > > 
> > > > > What do you think ?
> > > > 
> > > > Who do I email?  Which entries are causing problems?  That's the whole
> > > > bloody point.
> > > 
> > > Isn't the email in your database? You can't just script that ?
> > > 
> > > > There's just far too much of it.  The amount of effort required to sort
> > > > through this file each time it needs to be updated has become
> > > > *excessive*. The amount of effort required to go through the file and
> > > > identify which entries are broken is *excessive*.  The amount of
> > > > effort required to find who to email is *excessive*.
> > > 
> > > Why not write a script for that ?
> > 
> > No, I don't have the time at present.
> 
> You're the head maintainer here and ARM is a rising architecture. If you can't 
> cope with that, you have a growing community of very competent people here. 
> Maybe someone will be willing to take over eventually? It'll relieve some 
> pressure from you too, what do you think?

Hello.  Do you even understand the issue you're talking about?

There is a problem _right_ _now_ with the mach-types file.

That problem was caused by gplugd being merged without its entry being in
the mach-types file - which was omitted - by way of editing by hand, along
with shit loads of other entries - because of the fuckup with the
machine_is_xxx() name not matching the configuration or MACH_TYPE symbol.

So, rather than wasting a *significant* amount of time hand editing the
file at every update (which is precisely why I haven't been updating the
bloody thing) I've built it into the script so that entries which do not
conform are automatically omitted.

Problem solved.

Any remaining problems are down to the maintainers not talking to me and,
if you haven't realised yet, I have _zero_ sympathy for that especially
when it doesn't take much effort _on their part_ to do.

It's got nothing to do with ARM being a rising architecture.  It's about
maintainers doing the right thing, behaving in the right way and taking
responsibility for their fuckups.  Putting the pain where the pain should
be - in the platform maintainers lap, not in my lap.

46dcfc8 (ARM: Update mach-types) removes used machine types

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 03:04:01PM +0200, Eric B?nard wrote:
> I did this mistake quite a long time ago just after submission.
> I'll come back to you to fix this in a short time, sorry for the annoyance.

If you can sort out a fix to rename the constants against current
-rc, I'll slip it in before the commit which should fix the problem
transparently.  I'll have to update the database via SQL though...
what joy.

46dcfc8 (ARM: Update mach-types) removes used machine types

[Eric Miao]

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 9:48 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
<linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 03:36:12PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> On Monday, August 22, 2011 03:32:42 PM Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 03:30:41PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> > > On Monday, August 22, 2011 03:27:19 PM Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> > > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 03:16:00PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> > > > > On Monday, August 22, 2011 03:01:19 PM Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> > > > > > For further reading, see:
>> > > > > > http://lists.arm.linux.org.uk/lurker/message/20110815.085325.ae6ee0
>> > > > > > 7d.e n.ht ml
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Russell, calm down please.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Maybe it'd be better to just email the people with broken stuff, then
>> > > > > wait ... if they don't reply in a week (two weeks?) then remove their
>> > > > > stuff. And make that a policy.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > What do you think ?
>> > > >
>> > > > Who do I email? ?Which entries are causing problems? ?That's the whole
>> > > > bloody point.
>> > >
>> > > Isn't the email in your database? You can't just script that ?
>> > >
>> > > > There's just far too much of it. ?The amount of effort required to sort
>> > > > through this file each time it needs to be updated has become
>> > > > *excessive*. The amount of effort required to go through the file and
>> > > > identify which entries are broken is *excessive*. ?The amount of
>> > > > effort required to find who to email is *excessive*.
>> > >
>> > > Why not write a script for that ?
>> >
>> > No, I don't have the time at present.
>>
>> You're the head maintainer here and ARM is a rising architecture. If you can't
>> cope with that, you have a growing community of very competent people here.
>> Maybe someone will be willing to take over eventually? It'll relieve some
>> pressure from you too, what do you think?
>
> Hello. ?Do you even understand the issue you're talking about?
>
> There is a problem _right_ _now_ with the mach-types file.
>
> That problem was caused by gplugd being merged without its entry being in
> the mach-types file - which was omitted - by way of editing by hand, along
> with shit loads of other entries - because of the fuckup with the
> machine_is_xxx() name not matching the configuration or MACH_TYPE symbol.

Grrrr.... as the original guilty one who stirred this whole pile of
sh*t up, should
I keep my mouth shut up on this?  ;-)

True that it's a stupid mistake for code to use non-matched machine entries
and it's fair to simply remove them.

Yet I guess what us sub-maintainers would like to know is the correct way
to amend this (after the incorrect entry being removed), and to better help
with "getting it right"?

>
> So, rather than wasting a *significant* amount of time hand editing the
> file at every update (which is precisely why I haven't been updating the
> bloody thing) I've built it into the script so that entries which do not
> conform are automatically omitted.
>
> Problem solved.
>
> Any remaining problems are down to the maintainers not talking to me and,
> if you haven't realised yet, I have _zero_ sympathy for that especially
> when it doesn't take much effort _on their part_ to do.
>
> It's got nothing to do with ARM being a rising architecture. ?It's about
> maintainers doing the right thing, behaving in the right way and taking
> responsibility for their fuckups. ?Putting the pain where the pain should
> be - in the platform maintainers lap, not in my lap.
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
>

[PATCH] cpuimx* boards: fix mach-types errors

[Eric Bénard]

I made some changes to the entry in the ARM Machine Registry after
submission which was the wrong thing to do.
This patch should help to fix this error.

Signed-off-by: Eric B?nard <eric@eukrea.com>
---
 arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-cpuimx27.c        |    2 +-
 arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-cpuimx35.c        |    2 +-
 arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-eukrea_cpuimx25.c |    2 +-
 arch/arm/tools/mach-types                |    6 +++---
 4 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-cpuimx27.c b/arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-cpuimx27.c
index 87887ac..f851fe9 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-cpuimx27.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-cpuimx27.c
@@ -310,7 +310,7 @@ static struct sys_timer eukrea_cpuimx27_timer = {
 	.init = eukrea_cpuimx27_timer_init,
 };
 
-MACHINE_START(CPUIMX27, "EUKREA CPUIMX27")
+MACHINE_START(EUKREA_CPUIMX27, "EUKREA CPUIMX27")
 	.boot_params = MX27_PHYS_OFFSET + 0x100,
 	.map_io = mx27_map_io,
 	.init_early = imx27_init_early,
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-cpuimx35.c b/arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-cpuimx35.c
index f39a478b..4bd083b 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-cpuimx35.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-cpuimx35.c
@@ -192,7 +192,7 @@ struct sys_timer eukrea_cpuimx35_timer = {
 	.init	= eukrea_cpuimx35_timer_init,
 };
 
-MACHINE_START(EUKREA_CPUIMX35, "Eukrea CPUIMX35")
+MACHINE_START(EUKREA_CPUIMX35SD, "Eukrea CPUIMX35")
 	/* Maintainer: Eukrea Electromatique */
 	.boot_params = MX3x_PHYS_OFFSET + 0x100,
 	.map_io = mx35_map_io,
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-eukrea_cpuimx25.c b/arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-eukrea_cpuimx25.c
index da36da5..2442d5d 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-eukrea_cpuimx25.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-eukrea_cpuimx25.c
@@ -161,7 +161,7 @@ static struct sys_timer eukrea_cpuimx25_timer = {
 	.init   = eukrea_cpuimx25_timer_init,
 };
 
-MACHINE_START(EUKREA_CPUIMX25, "Eukrea CPUIMX25")
+MACHINE_START(EUKREA_CPUIMX25SD, "Eukrea CPUIMX25")
 	/* Maintainer: Eukrea Electromatique */
 	.boot_params = MX25_PHYS_OFFSET + 0x100,
 	.map_io = mx25_map_io,
diff --git a/arch/arm/tools/mach-types b/arch/arm/tools/mach-types
index fff68d0..62cc8f9 100644
--- a/arch/arm/tools/mach-types
+++ b/arch/arm/tools/mach-types
@@ -351,7 +351,7 @@ centro			MACH_CENTRO		CENTRO			1944
 nokia_rx51		MACH_NOKIA_RX51		NOKIA_RX51		1955
 omap_zoom2		MACH_OMAP_ZOOM2		OMAP_ZOOM2		1967
 cpuat9260		MACH_CPUAT9260		CPUAT9260		1973
-eukrea_cpuimx27		MACH_CPUIMX27		CPUIMX27		1975
+eukrea_cpuimx27		MACH_EUKREA_CPUIMX27	EUKREA_CPUIMX27		1975
 acs5k			MACH_ACS5K		ACS5K			1982
 snapper_9260		MACH_SNAPPER_9260	SNAPPER_9260		1987
 dsm320			MACH_DSM320		DSM320			1988
@@ -476,8 +476,8 @@ cns3420vb		MACH_CNS3420VB		CNS3420VB		2776
 omap4_panda		MACH_OMAP4_PANDA	OMAP4_PANDA		2791
 ti8168evm		MACH_TI8168EVM		TI8168EVM		2800
 teton_bga		MACH_TETON_BGA		TETON_BGA		2816
-eukrea_cpuimx25sd	MACH_EUKREA_CPUIMX25	EUKREA_CPUIMX25		2820
-eukrea_cpuimx35sd	MACH_EUKREA_CPUIMX35	EUKREA_CPUIMX35		2821
+eukrea_cpuimx25sd	MACH_EUKREA_CPUIMX25SD	EUKREA_CPUIMX25SD	2820
+eukrea_cpuimx35sd	MACH_EUKREA_CPUIMX35SD	EUKREA_CPUIMX35SD	2821
 eukrea_cpuimx51sd	MACH_EUKREA_CPUIMX51SD	EUKREA_CPUIMX51SD	2822
 eukrea_cpuimx51		MACH_EUKREA_CPUIMX51	EUKREA_CPUIMX51		2823
 smdkc210		MACH_SMDKC210		SMDKC210		2838
-- 
1.7.6

[PATCH] cpuimx* boards: fix mach-types errors

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 04:19:53PM +0200, Eric B?nard wrote:
> I made some changes to the entry in the ARM Machine Registry after
> submission which was the wrong thing to do.
> This patch should help to fix this error.

Looks fine.  Could you throw it in the patch system please?

Thanks.

[PATCH] cpuimx* boards: fix mach-types errors

[Eric Bénard]

Le 22/08/2011 16:37, Russell King - ARM Linux a ?crit :
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 04:19:53PM +0200, Eric B?nard wrote:
>> I made some changes to the entry in the ARM Machine Registry after
>> submission which was the wrong thing to do.
>> This patch should help to fix this error.
>
> Looks fine.  Could you throw it in the patch system please?
>
submitted as patch 7051/1

Thanks,
Eric