Re: [PATCH 00/13] convert voyager over to the x86 quirks model

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>]

James Bottomley wrote:
> 
> That goes for a huge number of drivers we have in the kernel currently,
> and several whole architectures, so it's not a barrier to keeping
> something maintained.
> 
>> nobody but you uses development kernels on it,
> 
> I don't think we've ever had a problem with a downstream community being
> supported by a single upstream developer.
> 

What "downstream community"?  There is none, and you know it.

That is the whole point.  Voyager isn't just a driver -- it's an
odd-man-out variant of the most used architecture in the world.  If it
was just a driver, it would make sense.  However, its very existence
forces constraints on the upstream x86 architecture, and it imposes a
real and considerable workload on the upstream maintainers -- and that
is not you, but on us.  When that happens with drivers for obsolete
hardware, we remove them.

Hence, Ingo rather logically asks you to justify this impact on our
workload.  I would like to know as well.  I'm personally sick of the
extra overhead this museum piece imposes.

	-hpa

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.