From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: plagnioj@jcrosoft.com (Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD) Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 15:45:46 +0200 Subject: Making ARM multiplatform kernels DT-only? In-Reply-To: <201205031350.35476.arnd@arndb.de> References: <201205031350.35476.arnd@arndb.de> Message-ID: <20120503134546.GB7788@game.jcrosoft.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 13:50 Thu 03 May , Arnd Bergmann wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I've been discussing multiplatform kernels with a few people recently, > and we will have a lot of discussion sessions about this at Linaro > Connect in Hong Kong. > > One question that came up repeatedly is whether we should support all > possible board files for each platform in a multiplatform kernel, > or just the ones that are already using DT probing. I would like > to get a quick poll of opinions on that and I've tried to put those > people on Cc that would be most impacted by this, i.e. the maintainers > for platforms that have both DT and non-DT board files at the moment. > > My feeling is that we should just mandate DT booting for multiplatform > kernels, because it significantly reduces the combinatorial space > at compile time, avoids a lot of legacy board files that we cannot > test anyway, reduces the total kernel size and gives an incentive > for people to move forward to DT with their existing boards. Acked-by: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD > > The counterargument is that we won't be able to support all the > boards we currently do when the user switches on multiplatform, > but I think that is acceptable. > Note that I would still want to allow users to build platforms > separately in order to enable the ATAG style board files, even > for platforms that are not multiplatform capable. > > Other opinions? it will also avoid us alot of trouble and work to fix old platform that we can not even test Best Regards, J.