From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kevin Hilman Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] TI DaVinci git tree available Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 17:19:51 -0700 Message-ID: <1148689191.10467.17.camel@vence.internal.net> References: <1147826617.8739.32.camel@vence.internal.net> <446B44B9.2000900@gmail.com> <1147885134.8739.70.camel@vence.internal.net> <20060526232147.GP4132@atomide.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-O7qZa7yhyA/cG6p+fCrh" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20060526232147.GP4132@atomide.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-omap-open-source-bounces@linux.omap.com Errors-To: linux-omap-open-source-bounces@linux.omap.com To: Tony Lindgren Cc: "linux-omap-open-source@linux.omap.com" List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org --=-O7qZa7yhyA/cG6p+fCrh Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, 2006-05-26 at 16:21 -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Kevin Hilman [060517 13:46]: > > On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 17:43 +0200, Dirk Behme wrote: > > > Kevin Hilman wrote: > > > > The kernel git tree[1] for the TI DaVinci platform is now available > > > > > > What are the pros and cons for having one tree vs. two trees > > > for OMAP1 & OMAP2 (& OMAP3?) & DaVinci in the long term? > > > > It may be a good idea long term, in fact I almost released this tree as > > a branch of the OMAP tree instead of Linus' tree. As I thought about it > > though, there's very little shared code between the two trees, so I > > assumed it would be more of a burden on the OMAP community. So in the > > end, I decided to wait and see what type of development community > > sprouts up around DaVinci and go from there. If the OMAP community is > > interested in absorbing the DaVinci support, I think long-term > > maintenance would be easier. > > > > I'm not fixed on one way or the other, and could easily be pursuaded to > > rebase the DaVinci tree. For kicks, I rebased locally, and there's a > > patch adding DaVinci support to todays OMAP tree available here: > > http://source.mvista.com/~khilman/davinci/ > > Let's wait and see then. If we have lots of drivers to share then it > makes sense to have them in the same tree. But for few drivers, let's > just work them out and try to have them integrated into the mainline > tree. So you're leaning towards keeping the trees separate? It would incentivize pushing things upstream. In any case, I've attached a patch which adds core DaVinci support to todays OMAP tree. You can see that there no changes to common files (except Makefile/Kconfig) and will not affect OMAP. > > Some existing areas of overlap I can think of off the top of my head: > > > > - CONFIG_DEBUG_LL patch to kernel/printk.c > > Hmmm, what are you using for CONFIG_DEBUG_LL then? The change to kernel/printk.c is not in mainline, so I've borrowed the one from the OMAP tree. > > - AIC23 code: DaVinci has AIC33 and I have a minor patch to support > > AIC33 > > Let's try to get that integrated to the mainline tree. I don't think the existing aic23 code is in mainline yet, is it? > > - There's also hack to the 8250.c serial ISR that used to be needed but > > is no longer needed on DaVinci. It seems some mainline fixes have > > removed the need for that. I'm curious if it's still necessary on OMAP. > > I assume you mean this chunk? > > @@ -1372,7 +1372,8 @@ > > DEBUG_INTR("end.\n"); > > - return IRQ_RETVAL(handled); > + //return IRQ_RETVAL(handled); > + return IRQ_HANDLED; /* FIXME: iir status not ready on 1510 */ > } Yeah, that's what I"m referring to. > I'll see if things work now without that. > DaVinci doesn't seem to need it anymore. I remembered one other driver that will be shared and that's the Mentor high-speed usb driver which is the same on 243x and DaVinci. Kevin --=-O7qZa7yhyA/cG6p+fCrh Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline --=-O7qZa7yhyA/cG6p+fCrh--