From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 23:38:10 +0100 Subject: Pull request: removal of most instances of mach/memory.h In-Reply-To: References: <20110926131524.GJ22455@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20110926191055.GP22455@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <20110926223810.GA23680@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 04:00:11PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Mon, 26 Sep 2011, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 10:33:28AM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > > ARM: mach-ep93xx: remove mach/memory.h and Kconfig selection of SDRAM bank > > > > Are you planning to totally kill off ZBOOT_ROM too? Because removing > > the zreladdr stuff is doing exactly that. > > It looks like ZBOOT_ROM is not used on that platform at all. However, > the ability to have a single defconfig and binary for the whole platform > is something that the mach-ep93xx maintainers are looking for. Having > ZBOOT_ROM depend on and use CONFIG_PHYS_OFFSET would probably makes > sense eventually. You miss the point. Removing zreladdr actively _prevents_ anyone from then choosing to build a kernel with ZBOOT_ROM enabled targetted for one platform if that's what they want, because the decompressor then loses the information it needs to properly locate the kernel. > > This also gives additional merge conflicts elsewhere, and while git > > rerere makes some of them easy, the quantity is going to be a right > > pain to deal with on a repeated basis. > > Again, I'm perfectly willing to use a different base for this series and > fix the conflicts myself if you give me one. That's difficult when there are a number of unstable branches involved.