From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: khc@pm.waw.pl (Krzysztof Halasa) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2012 19:02:36 +0200 Subject: ARM SoC tree, Was: Re: [PATCH 05/12] ARM: ixp4xx: use __iomem for MMIO In-Reply-To: <201209291458.16112.arnd@arndb.de> (Arnd Bergmann's message of "Sat, 29 Sep 2012 14:58:15 +0000") References: <1348868177-21205-1-git-send-email-arnd@arndb.de> <1348868177-21205-6-git-send-email-arnd@arndb.de> <201209291458.16112.arnd@arndb.de> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Arnd Bergmann writes: >> Could you please point me to a statement requiring eg. my changes to go >> through arm-soc? > > We've been doing it like this for some time. Stephen Warren replied > to your request to add your tree to linux-next in > > http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1356118 > > explaining how it works. Olof sent a mail last week in > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2012/9/21/31 > > explaining that we're closing the window for 3.7 except for a > few things that were already submitted earlier. No offense, but... You say how does it work for YOU but that's not exactly what I'm asking for. I'm asking for a statement that it's not OK for me to push my IXP4xx changes straight to Linus. > The arm-soc process is definitely meant to make your life easier > as well as help Linus understand what's going on with all of ARM > to the degree that he needs to know, but it only works if everyone > participates. I'd like to know how is it easier for me. Actually, I think it would only make things worse for everyone (mostly for me). Also, I can't see how "it only works if everyone participates" is true. I'm currently supporting (for our internal needs) hw platforms based on x86, MIPS and now ARM. I'm using 3.1 (non-trivial upgrades required so -ETIME) and 3.5 "stable" trees, and need to also use Linus' current tree since it's the next stable. The hw is e.g. Gateworks' platforms with code taken from e.g. OpenWRT. I hope to have most of this in Linus' tree when it's eventually ready. Unfortunately, I'm just one man, and the above is only a slim part of my work. Egoistically, I don't think I'm currently willing to spend time with arm-soc tree, if I can't see any real technical benefit to anyone. It would be different if my tree included e.g. core ARM changes - but it doesn't. What's the _real_ reason for asking me to push my changes indirectly? Also, not that it's the most important, but how is it better for anyone to delay changes - which are completely orthogonal to arm-soc - for additional months? Doesn't "release early, release often" make sense anymore? -- Krzysztof Halasa