Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 12:43:40 +0100
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Kumar Gala <galak@codeaurora.org>
Subject: Re: Use of drivers/platform and matching include?
Message-ID: <20131004114340.GM12758@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
References: <BC1C47B3-5412-4829-A1D9-AAB04694D1CC@codeaurora.org> <CAOesGMjJ6Uj0uGFJqtnWQyDW+tr6eLVWoHZ+B7uFna+L8N6E8Q@mail.gmail.com> <20131003170914.GA11992@kroah.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20131003170914.GA11992@kroah.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1029
Lines: 21

On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 10:09:14AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 09:46:30AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > I don't have a good answer though. If it wasn't for the arm64 fork,
> > locating these under arch/arm somewhere would really be the reasonable
> > answer, like we used to do on powerpc. :(
> 
> Sounds like yet-another-good reason why there shouldn't be an arm64
> "fork" at all :(
> 
> The arm community created this mess, you all can fix it up, it's not too
> late.

I said at the time, way before arm64 was merged that it should not be a
separate arch.  Every bit of feedback I gave on arm64 got shouted down
by Catalin.  ARM64 is Catalin's baby and he wants to protect it at all
costs.  I'm surprised Linus even pulled it in with no argument.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/