Re: HTC Dream aka. t-mobile g1 support

Ryan Mallon
2009-06-12T01:25:43Z

Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009, Ryan Mallon wrote:
>
>> Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>>> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>>
>>> I think that you, as the ARM maintainer, should continue gathering all
>>> the ARM subarchitectures into a coherent ARM tree and arbitrate
>>> conflicts when they occur. You should especially keep a tight control
>>> on the very core ARM code. But everything under arch/arm/mach-* you
>>> should let people maintaining those have control of that themselves and
>>> free yourself from that responsibility as much as possible. The current
>>> directory structure is quite indicative of where the boundaries are
>>> already. This way, if I make a mess of arch/arm/mach-orion5x/* then you
>>> just need to pass the blame straight to me.
>>>
>> That works okay for the more popular sub-architectures like pxa, etc,
>> where there are a lot of people to review code and sort out issues
>> between themselves. However, for the architecture I do most of my work
>> on, ep93xx, there are basically two of us, Hartley and myself, doing
>> active work.
>>
>> It seems a bit dodgy if all the patches to ep93xx are written by one of
>> us and acked by the other with no input from anybody else. It would be
>> very easy for the ep93xx code to become and complete mess, and lack any
>> coherency with the other sub-archs. I prefer having Russell, or somebody
>> else, at least have a glance at the patches before they get applied.
>
> This is all fine. If you prefer some external help to judge your
> patches that's OK. In fact I'm not advocating for people to stop
> posting their patches to linux-arm-kernel at all. It is a good thing
> for patches to be aired on the mailing list for everyone to see and
> comment.
>
> However if you start gathering more developers around the ep93xx then
> someone should take charge and be responsible for it. And this must not
> necessarily be Russell as his cycles are not infinite.

Thats my point though: In the meantime, it falls on Russell by default
to be the one to verify all the patches going through. I think the same
is true for new architectures, if nobody else has the interest/hardware
besides those posting the patches, then who is meant to do the
reviewing/acking?

~Ryan

--
Bluewater Systems Ltd - ARM Technology Solution Centre

Ryan Mallon Unit 5, Amuri Park
Phone: +64 3 3779127 404 Barbadoes St
Fax: +64 3 3779135 PO Box 13 889
Email: ryan@bluewatersys.com Christchurch, 8013
Web: http://www.bluewatersys.com New Zealand
Freecall Australia 1800 148 751 USA 1800 261 2934