From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 10:19:56 -0700 From: Tom Rini To: Wolfgang Denk Cc: Kumar Gala , Linux/PPC Development Subject: Re: Proposed Kconfig update patch for help text) Message-ID: <20040401171956.GD26876@smtp.west.cox.net> References: <20040401161622.GA26876@smtp.west.cox.net> <20040401170515.E5C8EC10A4@atlas.denx.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20040401170515.E5C8EC10A4@atlas.denx.de> Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 07:05:10PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > In message <20040401161622.GA26876@smtp.west.cox.net> you wrote: > > > > In all seriousness, when the 52xx code for 2.4 was brought up, there > > were a number of objections to the Motorola provided code, from it's > > buggy to it being unacceptable crap. Finally, 2.4 is about to enter a > > So far, it's all we have, right? Or do you have anything significant- > ly better? As I said, someone is working on the second option I described, but I don't know how far they have gotten. > > "deep freeze", or so Marcelo intends at least, so I think it's out of > > the question for the mainline. I don't mind keeping the > > So why made you me submit all the stuff in the first place when you > were going to put it on hold until it was too late for inclusion? When I asked, there was time. Once I started trying to get people to review it (since that's what upstream people like, and it's good practice) it became apparent that the code wasn't in good enough shape to get in. > > For 2.6, I think one of the following options needs to be done. > > - Motorola code, cleaned up with input from the community (and the bits > > Linux just doesn't need, left out). > > I think this is the only option there is. > > > - Ignore the Motorola code, or since it's GPL (must be to be in the > > kernel, so I'm just making the assumption here...) use it as a guide > > for how things work to implement a clean Linux implementation of the > > code. I know there's someone working on this (who pops up on > > #mklinux on freenode from time to time) but I don't know how far > > they've gotten. > > Ummm... Why is there no discussion about this on any mailing list? There was some discussion in the same thread where people like benh pointed out how bad the code is. And there's a discussion right now, right here even. > And don't you think that that at least Motorola should be included in > any such attempts? [AFAICT they are not, at least not until today.] Well, Kumar is cc'ed here, and he's even on #mklinux on freenode where Paul, benh, myself, and a lot of other people (including the person who I suspect is on this list, but I don't know) who're working on 5xxx for 2.6 support, without the Motorola code. If there's a specific person at Motorola who'd be interested in what the Linux community has to say about the DMA code, no one has told me who. > Also, isn't this kind of wasted effort as the target is still moving? What target? The Motorola code? The 5xxx hw line? If you're talking about kernels, the only non-moving target right now is 2.2, but I don't think you're talking about that. -- Tom Rini http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/