From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Laurent Pinchart Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 02:50:10 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] ARM: Rename ARCH_SHMOBILE to ARCH_SHMOBILE_LEGACY Message-Id: <1586355.IPva4G58Xv@avalon> List-Id: References: <1383782061-7111-1-git-send-email-laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com> In-Reply-To: <1383782061-7111-1-git-send-email-laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-sh@vger.kernel.org Hi, On Tuesday 12 November 2013 11:30:22 Simon Horman wrote: > On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 09:45:12AM +0000, phil.edworthy@renesas.com wrote: > > > On Friday 08 November 2013 14:57:29 stephen.lawrence@renesas.com wrote: > > > > linux-sh-owner@vger.kernel.org wrote on 08/11/2013 06:08:05: > > > > > On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 03:04:57PM +0900, Magnus Damm wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 8:54 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > > > > > SH-Mobile platforms are transitioning from non-multiplatform to > > > > > > > multiplatform kernel. A new ARCH_SHMOBILE_MULTI configuration > > > > > > > symbol has been created to group all multiplatform-enabled SH- > > > > > > > Mobile SoCs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The existing ARCH_SHMOBILE configuration symbol groups SoCs > > > > > > > that haven't been converted yet. > > > > > > > > I'm sure there are reasons for keeping it but looking forward I can't > > > > help but wonder if this wouldn't be a good time to lose the SHMOBILE > > > > tag for new platforms? It doesn't seem to be a great match to our > > > > business or the architectures. > > > > > > > > I know from conversations I've had in the last year or so that > > > > external engineers working on R-Car sometimes do not find your good > > > > work upstream as the combination of sh-mobile and using the product > > > > number proved an effective method of concealment. Although of course > > > > they could find it by searching the right files. > > > > > > It's not a bad idea, but I'm not sure how we could proceed. SH-Mobile, > > > R-Mobile and R-Car chipsets are all supported by a single code base, for > > > which we need a name. Splitting the code base wouldn't make much sense > > > from a technical point of view. > > > > True, but it would be helpful to have Renesas in the device name > > somewhere. Maybe include Renesas in the mach-shmobile/Kconfig description > > for the devices, and also update the description in arm/Kconfig to > > include R-Car. > > Hi, > > I have been involved in several discussions relating to moving away from > the shmobile name. > > Prior to this thread the most recent discussion I was involved in was with > Olof Johansson, ARM-SoC co-maintainer, and Magnus. Due to the amount of > churn involved in changing the name of the mach-shmobile directory or > somehow splitting the code between multiple mach- directories, which was > the variant of the topic under discussion, the consensus was that moving > things around was not on the cards at this time. There is also, as Laurent > mentioned, the technical issue that splitting the code doesn't make a whole > lot of sense from an implementation point of view. > > From my point of view changing the SHMOBILE potion of ARCH_SHMOBILE_* > only really makes sense if the name of mach-shmobile directory is changed > in a similar way, which as I mentioned above that seems to be off the cards > at this time. The reason I think this is that if the ARCH_XXX name doesn't > match the directory we will add confusion rather than removing it. > > With the above in mind I think that Phil's proposal to enhance the > descriptions in mach-shmobile/Kconfig and arm/Kconfig is an excellent one > given the hand of cards we have available to play. Is someone going to submit a patch or should I do it ? -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart