From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kevin Hilman Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] ARM: msm: Remove 7x00 support Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 11:51:34 -0700 Message-ID: <87eh71mfyh.fsf@linaro.org> References: <1382993006-27359-1-git-send-email-davidb@codeaurora.org> <1382993006-27359-3-git-send-email-davidb@codeaurora.org> <20131029132043.GA28165@fifo99.com> <87ob66nyqc.fsf@linaro.org> <20131030232412.GA10229@fifo99.com> <8738nhnz4s.fsf@linaro.org> <20131031173506.GA31722@fifo99.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from mail-pa0-f41.google.com ([209.85.220.41]:53870 "EHLO mail-pa0-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753206Ab3JaSvh (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:51:37 -0400 Received: by mail-pa0-f41.google.com with SMTP id rd3so3018750pab.0 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 11:51:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20131031173506.GA31722@fifo99.com> (Daniel Walker's message of "Thu, 31 Oct 2013 10:35:06 -0700") Sender: linux-arm-msm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org To: Daniel Walker Cc: Olof Johansson , David Brown , Bryan Huntsman , Russell King , Arnd Bergmann , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" Daniel Walker writes: > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 10:12:03AM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote: >> Daniel Walker writes: >> >> >> No. The idea behind splitting them is to allow current platforms with >> active maintainers to progress without being held back. The older >> platforms can stay and have an opportunity to modernize. >> >> The kernel is a moving target, without some minimal effort to keep >> platforms up to date, the effort to continue to maintain/modernize them >> can become more of a pain than it's worth. If maintainers of these older >> platforms are willing to put in the work, nobody will be SOL. If >> nobody shows interest in modernizing these older platforms (which seems >> to be the case based on the last couple years), then it is reasonable >> IMO for them to fade away slowly. > > > According to a prior email Tony suggested that OMAP was split for purely > technical reasons.. If code is shared in some way , or has synergies, and there's no > technical reason to split a sub-architecture, then to me there's no win in splitting > things.. The wins have already been well described in this thread in terms of maintenance of newer platforms using modern kernel infrastructure. > It's just more directories, more confusion etc.. The confusion > would come from someone wanting to find the code related to a platform, > but woops there's a bunch of directories, or code flow and how the > sub-architecture is strung together .. Personally I found OMAP very > confusing in that regard. > > ARM and the sub-architectures is already confusing I don't think we need > to start compounding the problem by allowing random whatever-you-want > sub-directories from every sub-architecture. Randomness is quite a bit of an exaggeration of what's been proposed here. These decisions are made on a case-by-case basis and is this case is being done for ease of maintainence for newer platforms, which may not be a "technical reason" for you, but is important for overall maintenance of arm-soc. If we do this split, you are more than welcome to demonstrate the commonality by modernizing mach-msm, combining it with mach-qcom, removing mach-msm, and then removing all the "confusion." Kevin