From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760180AbYDWGEr (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Apr 2008 02:04:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752285AbYDWGE0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Apr 2008 02:04:26 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:55422 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752151AbYDWGEX (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Apr 2008 02:04:23 -0400 Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 23:02:38 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Russell King Cc: rdunlap@xenotime.net, harvey.harrison@gmail.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, randy.dunlap@oracle.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] mfd: kconfig exposing unbuildable driver Message-Id: <20080422230238.48c50ea0.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20080422210153.GB21435@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1208895950.24124.9.camel@brick> <20080422203334.GA9809@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20080422204549.GA21435@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20080422210153.GB21435@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.4 (GTK+ 2.8.19; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 22:01:53 +0100 Russell King wrote: > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 01:47:18PM -0700, Randy.Dunlap wrote: > > On Tue, 22 Apr 2008, Russell King wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 01:38:28PM -0700, Randy.Dunlap wrote: > > > > On Tue, 22 Apr 2008, Russell King wrote: > > > > > > > > > That was my initial approach as well, which got shot down by Andrew > > > > > Morton and others as being unacceptable. > > > > > > > > where? > > > > > > In private mail. > > > > > > > why? > > > > > > Well, first I need to gain the permission of Andrew to post his private > > > message. I'm not being subborn here - I _do_ _not_ reproduce private > > > messages in public without prior permission. > > > > Sure, understood. > > > > > > Seems like we need to push back on that part. > > > > > > Talk to Andrew then. > > > > He is cc-ed (although traveling much this week IIRC). > > In which case, since it's likely I won't get a reply in the next hour > (which'll delay my response by 24 hours) let me paraphrase what Andrew > said. > > Andrew believes that it is beneficial to have other architectures, > particularly x86, build other architectures drivers. Well. I pointed out that there are arguments either way, and I do tend to think that the let-x86-compile-it-too approach is perhaps the better one, but that's a 51%/49% opinion. Others disagree and lots and lots of code has gone the other way. Do whatever you think best ;)