From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:35:39 -0500 From: Josh Boyer To: pterry@micromemory.com Subject: Re: Patches for ppc? Message-ID: <20070821113539.097bec87@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <1187712684.13726.32.camel@pterry-fc6.micromemory.com> References: <46C5519E.6010300@dutchspace.nl> <1187353616.2778.358.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> <46C5B288.2010308@dutchspace.nl> <1187361603.2778.382.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> <46C5B40F.5040209@dutchspace.nl> <20070821052514.GC21169@localhost.localdomain> <1187712684.13726.32.camel@pterry-fc6.micromemory.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, David Woodhouse , David Gibson List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 09:11:24 -0700 Phil Terry wrote: > On Tue, 2007-08-21 at 17:14 +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > > It's not a question of indivudual files being copied over - things are > > > done differently in arch/powerpc. Things are gradually being ported > > > over to arch/powerpc as people get the time - that's why arch/ppc > > > isn't gone yet. > > > > And to be blunt, one of the points of arch/powerpc vs. arch/ppc is > > to actually leave behind some stuff. "If no one ports it, no one > > wants it". > > So am I alone in getting a mixed message from "Linux community" to > "embedded community"? I don't think so.. > On the one hand we have people like GKH telling embedded people to stop > being private company/device specific forks but to submit their hardware > to the tree where it will be supported "for free" by the kernel hackers, > saving us the "chore" of supporting "our" code through all the kernel > changes and forever chasing it. Yes. Just submit it to the arch/powerpc tree instead of arch/ppc. But this is only an issue for the _initial_ submit, and only while the merge is on-going. > On the other hand we have people telling us that because we are too lazy > to support "our" code the kernel guys aren't going to pull it forward > for us. That's more of a issue for _existing_ code, not new code. > So in fact people 3rd party people like me are in between real problems, > we base our code on say a Freescale chip, who submit to the kernel to > save their support issues and we base our code on that. Now, the > Freescale guys are too busy porting their "latest" chips across the > PPC/Powerpc divide to port the "old" stuff so it gets "left behind". Or maybe it's just not ported yet? > That old stuff is still selling and the people who based code on it had > the expectation that the code would continue to be supported. So now I'm > being told not only to "port my stuff or lose it" but now also port > freescale's stuff or lose it. Well... it's not really going away until June 2008. There's time. josh