From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from de01egw01.freescale.net (de01egw01.freescale.net [192.88.165.102]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B057467CBE for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 04:48:52 +1100 (EST) Message-ID: <45803CFF.7090404@freescale.com> Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 12:48:47 -0500 From: Geoff Thorpe MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kumar Gala Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: consolidate mpc83xx platform files References: <20061208190758.6cee088f.kim.phillips@freescale.com> <1165648490.1103.117.camel@localhost.localdomain> <91EF8E0D-06BC-47FD-89E6-6350430946F9@kernel.crashing.org> <20061211155155.26868ca6.kim.phillips@freescale.com> <20061211201055.21031c9b.kim.phillips@freescale.com> <1165890570.11914.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> <457F1F6E.4020502@freescale.com> <1165960058.11914.72.camel@localhost.localdomain> <7152860A-27A3-4C08-B6A5-DFA57A63ACED@kernel.crashing.org> <20061212162416.06f0dd76.kim.phillips@freescale.com> <457F2FE1.1080308@freescale.com> <513E2628-5785-4100-9E83-986990E06DF5@kernel.crashing.org> <457F8EC3.60201@freescale.com> <2B135C85-9FF6-435E-975B-D0D3E7ACFF5B@kernel.crashing.org> In-Reply-To: <2B135C85-9FF6-435E-975B-D0D3E7ACFF5B@kernel.crashing.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , 'day, I'm inclined to defer to the maintainer's prerogative of judging the acceptability of code. :-) Thanks for responding. However I have a couple of little responses regarding other matters; Kumar Gala wrote: > There are a number of subtle reasons I think a generic port is > pointless and the only arguments I've heard are some concern about > duplication of code and the ability to boot a kernel w/o modification > on new HW. To each their own "concern" I guess. "Duplication of code and the ability to boot a kernel w/o modification on new HW" both seem like pretty legitimate concerns to me. That this may or may not be acceptable on a technical level should be the focus, but it seems irrational to presume to stipulate what interests/concerns other hackers should and should not have? This is linux, not windows. > The duplication code I believe is a style issue and we can reduce the > duplication to a minimum. The ability to boot a kernel w/o > modification on new HW is a nice to have, but I dont see this as > providing any "real value". Same comment. > I'd rather see people spending time on problems which need solutions > and this isn't one of them. Um, with all due respect. You are invoking what could only be described as "employer's privilege". I doubt the concern here came purely from someone having nothing better to do and being totally lost for ideas. No doubt they'll correct me if I'm wrong :-) I have no comment on your technical objections, only the(se) non-technical one(s). (Seasonal) cheers, Geoff