* Re: New mailing list specifically for embedded PowerPC development
2004-09-23 6:46 New mailing list specifically for embedded PowerPC development Stephen Rothwell
@ 2004-09-23 23:30 ` Tom Rini
2004-09-24 0:31 ` Brian Waite
2004-09-24 1:07 ` Eugene Surovegin
2004-09-24 16:48 ` Matt Porter
2004-09-25 18:56 ` Matt Porter
2 siblings, 2 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Tom Rini @ 2004-09-23 23:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stephen Rothwell; +Cc: linuxppc-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 606 bytes --]
On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 04:46:55PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> After some representations, I have created linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org
> for the discussion of all things to do with the development of Linux on
> embedded PowerPC platforms.
>
> General Linux on PowerPC development discussions should, of course, remain
> on this list.
>
> I hope noone feels slighted :-)
Could we please not do this? IMHO, it's better to keep everyone on one
list. Less cross posting, more communication and all of that. Thanks.
:)
--
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: New mailing list specifically for embedded PowerPC development
2004-09-23 23:30 ` Tom Rini
@ 2004-09-24 0:31 ` Brian Waite
2004-09-24 1:22 ` Hollis Blanchard
2004-09-24 1:07 ` Eugene Surovegin
1 sibling, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Brian Waite @ 2004-09-24 0:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Rini; +Cc: linuxppc-dev
I have to agree with Tom. After trying desperatly to keep up in the
time of too many lists, I would really like to keep the lists to a
minimum. If one archive can be searched for answers, life becomes much
easier. It becomes useless to split the lists as everyone on embedded
needs to be on dev eventually and everyone on dev usually ends up on
embedded. It also helps head off rat holes where 2 groups on different
lists solve the same prolem differently. I vote for one list, but the
is just me.
Thanks
Brian
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:30:35 -0700, Tom Rini <trini@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 04:46:55PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > After some representations, I have created linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org
> > for the discussion of all things to do with the development of Linux on
> > embedded PowerPC platforms.
> >
> > General Linux on PowerPC development discussions should, of course, remain
> > on this list.
> >
> > I hope noone feels slighted :-)
>
> Could we please not do this? IMHO, it's better to keep everyone on one
> list. Less cross posting, more communication and all of that. Thanks.
> :)
>
> --
> Tom Rini
> http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linuxppc-dev mailing list
> Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
> https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
>
>
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: New mailing list specifically for embedded PowerPC development
2004-09-24 0:31 ` Brian Waite
@ 2004-09-24 1:22 ` Hollis Blanchard
2004-09-24 3:23 ` Tom Rini
2004-09-24 5:52 ` Dan Malek
0 siblings, 2 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Hollis Blanchard @ 2004-09-24 1:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Brian Waite; +Cc: linuxppc-dev
I could go either way, but I think I'm leaning towards separate lists.
On Sep 23, 2004, at 7:31 PM, Brian Waite wrote:
> I have to agree with Tom. After trying desperatly to keep up in the
> time of too many lists, I would really like to keep the lists to a
> minimum. If one archive can be searched for answers, life becomes much
> easier. It becomes useless to split the lists as everyone on embedded
> needs to be on dev eventually
Probably true...
> and everyone on dev usually ends up on embedded.
I think this is the difference. Hackers with an iBook don't necessarily
know or care about issues in the drivers for this year's new embedded
SoC. In fact they probably don't. They probably care about cpufreq, and
3D acceleration, and why their laptop doesn't wake up when it goes to
sleep.
> It also helps head off rat holes where 2 groups on different
> lists solve the same prolem differently. I vote for one list, but the
> is just me.
I think ultimately the problem is that the embedded list ends up
generating a *lot* of traffic, and that traffic ends up drowning out
non-embedded topics.
-Hollis
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: New mailing list specifically for embedded PowerPC development
2004-09-24 1:22 ` Hollis Blanchard
@ 2004-09-24 3:23 ` Tom Rini
2004-09-24 5:52 ` Dan Malek
1 sibling, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Tom Rini @ 2004-09-24 3:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Hollis Blanchard; +Cc: linuxppc-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1660 bytes --]
On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 08:22:13PM -0500, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> I could go either way, but I think I'm leaning towards separate lists.
>
> On Sep 23, 2004, at 7:31 PM, Brian Waite wrote:
>
> >I have to agree with Tom. After trying desperatly to keep up in the
> >time of too many lists, I would really like to keep the lists to a
> >minimum. If one archive can be searched for answers, life becomes much
> >easier. It becomes useless to split the lists as everyone on embedded
> >needs to be on dev eventually
>
> Probably true...
>
> >and everyone on dev usually ends up on embedded.
>
> I think this is the difference. Hackers with an iBook don't necessarily
> know or care about issues in the drivers for this year's new embedded
> SoC. In fact they probably don't. They probably care about cpufreq, and
> 3D acceleration, and why their laptop doesn't wake up when it goes to
> sleep.
>
> >It also helps head off rat holes where 2 groups on different
> >lists solve the same prolem differently. I vote for one list, but the
> >is just me.
>
> I think ultimately the problem is that the embedded list ends up
> generating a *lot* of traffic, and that traffic ends up drowning out
> non-embedded topics.
Look at the flip side of things. There's the everything developer
folks, who really need to be on all of the lists, the 'embedded' folks,
and the apple folks. We used to have linux-pmac, but that kinda evolved :)
If someone suggested we have "linuxppc-dev" and "linuxppc-pmac" I assume
that other folks would complain they have to be on two lists...
--
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: New mailing list specifically for embedded PowerPC development
2004-09-24 1:22 ` Hollis Blanchard
2004-09-24 3:23 ` Tom Rini
@ 2004-09-24 5:52 ` Dan Malek
2004-09-24 16:41 ` Tom Rini
1 sibling, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Dan Malek @ 2004-09-24 5:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Hollis Blanchard; +Cc: linuxppc-dev
On Sep 23, 2004, at 9:22 PM, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> I think ultimately the problem is that the embedded list ends up
> generating a *lot* of traffic, and that traffic ends up drowning out
> non-embedded topics.
This was the reason the list was created years ago. People got tired
of reading my comments and few people were involved in embedded
development at that time :-) People with no interest in embedded didn't
want to hear about it.
I don't know why anyone would care if they have to subscribe to
multiple lists to get the information they need. There isn't any need
to cross post and I don't think this is done very much or at all. There
have been a few times early in the -embedded days that I have taken
topics from the embedded list to the -dev list, but this isn't necessary
any more because the interested parties are on both.
Personally, it doesn't make any difference to me, I subscribe to lots
of lists. I think everyone that said "no" so far also subscribes to
both
lists, I wonder how many people will want multiple lists?
Thanks.
-- Dan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: New mailing list specifically for embedded PowerPC development
2004-09-24 5:52 ` Dan Malek
@ 2004-09-24 16:41 ` Tom Rini
2004-09-25 2:59 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Tom Rini @ 2004-09-24 16:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dan Malek; +Cc: linuxppc-dev
On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 01:52:00AM -0400, Dan Malek wrote:
>
> On Sep 23, 2004, at 9:22 PM, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
>
> >I think ultimately the problem is that the embedded list ends up
> >generating a *lot* of traffic, and that traffic ends up drowning out
> >non-embedded topics.
>
> This was the reason the list was created years ago. People got tired
> of reading my comments and few people were involved in embedded
> development at that time :-) People with no interest in embedded didn't
> want to hear about it.
I would dare say that a few years ago the embedded side was a bit
smaller than today :)
> I don't know why anyone would care if they have to subscribe to
> multiple lists to get the information they need. There isn't any need
> to cross post and I don't think this is done very much or at all. There
> have been a few times early in the -embedded days that I have taken
> topics from the embedded list to the -dev list, but this isn't necessary
> any more because the interested parties are on both.
Well, it's not exactly obvious to new people why exactly the 'dev' list
isn't for embedded development. It also helps foster the notion that
'those embedded folks just go off and do their own thing'.
--
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: New mailing list specifically for embedded PowerPC development
2004-09-24 16:41 ` Tom Rini
@ 2004-09-25 2:59 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2004-09-25 3:01 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2004-09-25 18:08 ` Matt Porter
0 siblings, 2 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt @ 2004-09-25 2:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Rini; +Cc: linuxppc-dev
I specifically asked for the split.
The reason is that my bandwidth with mailing lists is small enough that
I need a way to quickly spot a patch that will be of interest to the
core kernel (like the recent Machine Check changes, for example) from
the 128654th guy asking why his FCP/OCP/Whatever embedded ethernet doesn't
get a proper MAC address with zeeBoot rev 187.387b4...
There is simply too much noise on the embedded lists, if the lists are
merged, I'll simply not be able to follow the new list and will probably
miss important/interesting stuffs.
To reply to Matt, "then where do pmac-specific discussions belong?", well,
how much pmac specific messages have you seen on linuxppc-dev in the past
few (monthes/years) ?
It's really a matter of signal/noise ratio.
Ben.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: New mailing list specifically for embedded PowerPC development
2004-09-25 2:59 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
@ 2004-09-25 3:01 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2004-09-25 3:08 ` Owen Stampflee
2004-09-25 17:57 ` Tom Rini
2004-09-25 18:08 ` Matt Porter
1 sibling, 2 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt @ 2004-09-25 3:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Rini; +Cc: linuxppc-dev
On Sat, 2004-09-25 at 12:59, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> I specifically asked for the split.
>
Oh, and another reason, which, though, is also a signal/noise
ratio matter. I expect most patches addressing ppc32 to be CCed
to linuxppc-dev. This is important for distro people to keep track
of bug fixes that went in after the kernel version they decided to
freeze on.
That will simply not happen if the embedded traffic is mixed in
Ben.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: New mailing list specifically for embedded PowerPC development
2004-09-25 3:01 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
@ 2004-09-25 3:08 ` Owen Stampflee
2004-09-25 18:01 ` Tom Rini
2004-09-25 17:57 ` Tom Rini
1 sibling, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Owen Stampflee @ 2004-09-25 3:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linuxppc-dev
> Oh, and another reason, which, though, is also a signal/noise
> ratio matter. I expect most patches addressing ppc32 to be CCed
> to linuxppc-dev. This is important for distro people to keep track
> of bug fixes that went in after the kernel version they decided to
> freeze on.
>
> That will simply not happen if the embedded traffic is mixed in
Agreed. I've already missed a patch or two in this big mess.
There is just way too much noise about various embedded issues. Myself
and many others simply don't want to know about latest and greatest
serial/ethernet/foo driver for the latest SoC out of Freescale and it
makes it really really difficult to follow the occasional thread about
stuff we do care about.
Embedded people, think about your complaints if the ppc64 list were
merged too... there would be a whole bunch of email you don't care about
on a list that should be fairly focused.
Cheers,
Owen
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: New mailing list specifically for embedded PowerPC development
2004-09-25 3:08 ` Owen Stampflee
@ 2004-09-25 18:01 ` Tom Rini
2004-09-25 18:10 ` Matt Porter
0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Tom Rini @ 2004-09-25 18:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Owen Stampflee; +Cc: linuxppc-dev
On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 08:08:16PM -0700, Owen Stampflee wrote:
> Embedded people, think about your complaints if the ppc64 list were
> merged too... there would be a whole bunch of email you don't care about
> on a list that should be fairly focused.
I know the arguement is lost, but actually I wasn't infavor of the ppc64
folks being split off too. And for future reference, I won't be in
favor of linuxppc64-embedded, but I know that's going to happen not too
far down the line either.
--
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: New mailing list specifically for embedded PowerPC development
2004-09-25 18:01 ` Tom Rini
@ 2004-09-25 18:10 ` Matt Porter
0 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Matt Porter @ 2004-09-25 18:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Rini; +Cc: linuxppc-dev
On Sat, Sep 25, 2004 at 11:01:44AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 08:08:16PM -0700, Owen Stampflee wrote:
>
> > Embedded people, think about your complaints if the ppc64 list were
> > merged too... there would be a whole bunch of email you don't care about
> > on a list that should be fairly focused.
>
> I know the arguement is lost, but actually I wasn't infavor of the ppc64
> folks being split off too. And for future reference, I won't be in
> favor of linuxppc64-embedded, but I know that's going to happen not too
> far down the line either.
In theory, linuxppc-embedded will welcome the embedded ppc970 folks.
A good point, nonetheless.
-Matt
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: New mailing list specifically for embedded PowerPC development
2004-09-25 3:01 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2004-09-25 3:08 ` Owen Stampflee
@ 2004-09-25 17:57 ` Tom Rini
2004-09-25 23:12 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
1 sibling, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Tom Rini @ 2004-09-25 17:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt; +Cc: linuxppc-dev
On Sat, Sep 25, 2004 at 01:01:56PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Sat, 2004-09-25 at 12:59, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > I specifically asked for the split.
>
> Oh, and another reason, which, though, is also a signal/noise
> ratio matter. I expect most patches addressing ppc32 to be CCed
> to linuxppc-dev. This is important for distro people to keep track
> of bug fixes that went in after the kernel version they decided to
> freeze on.
Are you referring to the pmac distro people, the embedded distro people
or the 'other' distro people here?
--
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: New mailing list specifically for embedded PowerPC development
2004-09-25 17:57 ` Tom Rini
@ 2004-09-25 23:12 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
0 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt @ 2004-09-25 23:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Rini; +Cc: linuxppc-dev
On Sun, 2004-09-26 at 03:57, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 25, 2004 at 01:01:56PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2004-09-25 at 12:59, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > > I specifically asked for the split.
> >
> > Oh, and another reason, which, though, is also a signal/noise
> > ratio matter. I expect most patches addressing ppc32 to be CCed
> > to linuxppc-dev. This is important for distro people to keep track
> > of bug fixes that went in after the kernel version they decided to
> > freeze on.
>
> Are you referring to the pmac distro people, the embedded distro people
> or the 'other' distro people here?
The non-embedded ones
Ben.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: New mailing list specifically for embedded PowerPC development
2004-09-25 2:59 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2004-09-25 3:01 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
@ 2004-09-25 18:08 ` Matt Porter
1 sibling, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Matt Porter @ 2004-09-25 18:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt; +Cc: linuxppc-dev
On Sat, Sep 25, 2004 at 12:59:06PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> To reply to Matt, "then where do pmac-specific discussions belong?", well,
> how much pmac specific messages have you seen on linuxppc-dev in the past
> few (monthes/years) ?
Well, I don't have list archives available now to go back and quantify
the pmac messages. It's enough for me to notice it. Obviously, it's
not nearly as many as the endless embedded-specific questions.
In the end, I was merely asking for clarification for where various
messages go. If I cc: linuxppc-embedded with booke core changes I
don't want people bitching that it wasn't on linuxppc-dev and vice
versa.
Again, I ask, what is "general PPC development discussion"? Anything
that doesn't involve an embedded only processor? This includes classic
PPC discussion as long as it's not on an embedded board, right? But
not other PPC processors?
If you asked for the split, I hope you can provide some clarification.
-Matt
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: New mailing list specifically for embedded PowerPC development
2004-09-23 23:30 ` Tom Rini
2004-09-24 0:31 ` Brian Waite
@ 2004-09-24 1:07 ` Eugene Surovegin
1 sibling, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Eugene Surovegin @ 2004-09-24 1:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Rini; +Cc: linuxppc-dev
On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 04:30:35PM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> Could we please not do this? IMHO, it's better to keep everyone on one
> list. Less cross posting, more communication and all of that. Thanks.
> :)
I agree with Tom and Brian here.
I'm sure everybody on -embedded are also subscribed to -dev. -dev
& -embeeded aren't very noisy and line between embedded stuff and just
"plain" PPC is blurring :).
Just my $0.02
--
Eugene.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: New mailing list specifically for embedded PowerPC development
2004-09-23 6:46 New mailing list specifically for embedded PowerPC development Stephen Rothwell
2004-09-23 23:30 ` Tom Rini
@ 2004-09-24 16:48 ` Matt Porter
2004-09-25 18:56 ` Matt Porter
2 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Matt Porter @ 2004-09-24 16:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stephen Rothwell; +Cc: linuxppc-dev
On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 04:46:55PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> After some representations, I have created linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org
> for the discussion of all things to do with the development of Linux on
> embedded PowerPC platforms.
>
> General Linux on PowerPC development discussions should, of course, remain
> on this list.
I need further guidelines on utilization of these lists. If embedded
discussions are on linuxppc-embedded and general development discussions
are on linuxppc-dev, then where do pmac-specific discussions belong?
They certainly don't belong on linuxppc-dev since that is a specific
class of machines that not everybody has interest in and generates
a lot of traffic.
Also, where do I post patches? I typically try to copy lkml and
linuxppc-dev. Can we establish that all patches go to linuxppc-dev
regardless of general/embedded/pmac? If not, it seems we'll have
to divide patches up into the generic portion that affects everybody
for linuxppc-dev and then the embedded/pmac portion to go elsewhere.
That would be real waste and make it difficult to follow a patch
set if it were split among lists with differing subscriber bases.
Of course, if we send patches to linuxppc-dev for embedded/pmac specific
items, then that guarantees the generation of discussion outside the
stated scope of the list when people have objection/concerns about a
patch.
I personally feel that the split is unnecessary, but obviously others
had strong feelings so I'm not going to needlessly object any longer.
The most important thing at this point is to provide a bit more detail
on the lists...and probably add a linuxppc-pmac list. :)
-Matt
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: New mailing list specifically for embedded PowerPC development
2004-09-23 6:46 New mailing list specifically for embedded PowerPC development Stephen Rothwell
2004-09-23 23:30 ` Tom Rini
2004-09-24 16:48 ` Matt Porter
@ 2004-09-25 18:56 ` Matt Porter
2004-09-26 12:13 ` Stephen Rothwell
2 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Matt Porter @ 2004-09-25 18:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stephen Rothwell; +Cc: linuxppc-dev
On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 04:46:55PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> After some representations, I have created linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org
> for the discussion of all things to do with the development of Linux on
> embedded PowerPC platforms.
>
> General Linux on PowerPC development discussions should, of course, remain
> on this list.
Let's try this a different way. :) Could you please add the following
text to the mailman list pages? Any objections? I think this will clarify
list usage as BenH would like it.
linuxppc-dev
------------
This is the Linux on PowerPC developers' mailing list. It is
free and open to all those interested in development of Linux
on PowerPC hardware, but discussions/patches should pertain to
software development for the kernel core ppc32 support and
CHRP/Pmac/PReP platforms. Any discussions/patches regarding
embedded procesoors/platforms should be directed to the
linuxppc-embedded list.
Patches are welcomed, but please refrain from posting excessively
large ones (40K is currently the limit for the entire message).
Large patches should be made available at an accessible FTP or
web site and the URL posted to this list. The list owner reserves
the right to implement filtering of list messages, unsubscribe
offenders, and/or otherwise prevent posting of messages to enforce
the list charter.
-----------------
linuxppc-embedded
-----------------
This is the Linux on PowerPC embedded developers' mailing list.
It is free and open to all those interested in development
of Linux on embedded PowerPC hardware, but discussions/patches
should pertain to software development for the kernel core ppc32
embedded processor support and any driver/chip/board support for
ppc32 based embedded systems. Any discussions/patches regarding
generic core ppc32 support should be directed to the linuxppc-dev
list.
Patches are welcomed, but please refrain from posting excessively
large ones (40K is currently the limit for the entire message).
Large patches should be made available at an accessible FTP or
web site and the URL posted to this list. The list owner reserves
the right to implement filtering of list messages, unsubscribe
offenders, and/or otherwise prevent posting of messages to enforce
the list charter.
-----------------
Regards,
Matt
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread