linux-arm-msm.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
To: Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>
Cc: Daniel Walker <dwalker@fifo99.com>,
	David Brown <davidb@codeaurora.org>,
	Bryan Huntsman <bryanh@codeaurora.org>,
	Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@deeprootsystems.com>,
	"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: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 11:40:45 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131029184044.GF15154@atomide.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOesGMgKbreaqFTGvC=_T6-i7uejfXAPNU8LmMpgDMqeEwYxZQ@mail.gmail.com>

* Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> [131029 10:40]:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Daniel Walker <dwalker@fifo99.com> wrote:
> 
> > Personally I think splitting mach- stuff isn't very useful or
> > interesting.. There's just no technical reason for it, for example x86
> > and x86_64 was a win from my perspective , there's a lot more reason to
> > keep similar things together than to split things up.
> 
> There are definitely valid technical reasons for it; the old and new
> platforms share no code, and the legacy platforms are unlikely to be
> updated to modern infrastructure anytime soon. Other platforms are
> managed in similar manners, such as OMAP, imx/mxs, etc.

Yeah there are still few valid reasons to have separate mach directories.

The main reason why mach-omap2 was originally set up separately from
mach-omap1 was because the IO space was different. And we could not
properly deal with that until CONFIG_ARM_PATCH_PHYS_VIRT few years ago.

So we placed the shared code into plat-omap, which worked OK but is
not really needed any longer with device tree. We have only dmtimer
and legacy DMA code left in plat-omap pretty much. And those will be
moved to live under drivers/.

Even with most issues fixed, it still does not not make sense to merge
mach-omap1 and mach-omap2. For example, even if somebody wanted to do it
as a hobby project, we'd have to compile things with v4 or v5 flags,
which won't work properly for SMP cores at least :)

Regards,

Tony

  reply	other threads:[~2013-10-29 18:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ 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 ` [PATCH 1/4] ARM: msm: Remove unused board files David Brown
2013-10-28 20:43 ` [PATCH 2/4] ARM: msm: Remove 7x00 support David Brown
2013-10-29 13:21   ` Daniel Walker
2013-10-29 15:37     ` Olof Johansson
2013-10-29 17:08       ` Daniel Walker
2013-10-29 17:39         ` Olof Johansson
2013-10-29 18:40           ` Tony Lindgren [this message]
2013-10-29 19:03           ` Daniel Walker
2013-10-30 23:08       ` Kevin Hilman
2013-10-30 23:25         ` Daniel Walker
2013-10-31  0:36           ` Olof Johansson
2013-10-31  2:45             ` Daniel Walker
2013-10-31  5:19               ` Olof Johansson
2013-10-31 12:07                 ` Daniel Walker
2013-10-31 15:53                   ` Olof Johansson
2013-10-31 16:33                     ` Daniel Walker
2013-10-31 17:12           ` Kevin Hilman
2013-10-31 17:35             ` Daniel Walker
2013-10-31 18:51               ` Kevin Hilman
2013-10-31 19:39                 ` Daniel Walker
2013-10-31 19:23               ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-10-31 19:43                 ` Daniel Walker
2013-10-28 20:43 ` [PATCH 3/4] ARM: msm: Remove 7x30 support David Brown
2013-10-29 21:15   ` [PATCH 3/4] ARM: msm: Remove 7x30 supporty Daniel Walker
2013-10-30 13:23     ` Arnd Bergmann
2013-10-28 20:43 ` [PATCH 4/4] ARM: msm: Remove 8x50 support David Brown
2013-10-29 21:19   ` Daniel Walker
2013-10-30 13:30     ` Arnd Bergmann
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=20131029184044.GF15154@atomide.com \
    --to=tony@atomide.com \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=bryanh@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=davidb@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=dwalker@fifo99.com \
    --cc=khilman@deeprootsystems.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).