Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758294Ab3J2RIe (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Oct 2013 13:08:34 -0400 Received: from fifo99.com ([67.223.236.141]:48410 "EHLO fifo99.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752287Ab3J2RIc (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Oct 2013 13:08:32 -0400 Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:08:17 -0700 From: Daniel Walker To: Olof Johansson Cc: David Brown , Bryan Huntsman , Russell King , Arnd Bergmann , Kevin Hilman , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] ARM: msm: Remove 7x00 support Message-ID: <20131029170817.GA13047@fifo99.com> References: <1382993006-27359-1-git-send-email-davidb@codeaurora.org> <1382993006-27359-3-git-send-email-davidb@codeaurora.org> <20131029132043.GA28165@fifo99.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2278 Lines: 48 On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 08:37:28AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote: > Daniel, > > I would be very happy to take more code for the older Qualcomm chipset > to enable full functionality for them, but it's been my impression > that far from all that is needed to make it a useful platform is in > the upstream kernel, and there's been no signs of more of it showing > up at least in the last two years. Some of the platform code he's removing is not compiled right now. I would have liked to make it compile, but I don't care that much (and they don't either) .. > So we have a bit of a stalemate here -- the current Qualcomm team > wants to avoid having to deal too much with the legacy platforms -- > they are technically quite different from the current platforms and > the divergence makes it hard to deal with supporting it all in a > modern way without risking regressions. I tend to agree with them. Oh what a sob story .. They can't claim to maintain msm except for the parts they don't like that much, thats not how it works. If you have a technical reason why you think hard to maintain code is "hard to deal with", please put that forth . If they want they can start submitting their patches to me, and I can deal with their "hard to deal with" stuff.. > Just like omap split between omap1 and omap2plus, I think it's a time > to create a mach-qcom instead, and move the modern (v7, most likely) > platforms there -- enable them with device tree, modern framework > infrastructure, etc. That way you can keep older platforms in mach-msm > without risk of regressions, and they have a clean base to start on > with their later platforms. Personally I think splitting mach- stuff isn't very useful or interesting.. There's just no technical reason for it, for example x86 and x86_64 was a win from my perspective , there's a lot more reason to keep similar things together than to split things up. The whole risking regressions, do you have proof of why you think that's happening ? The inverse seems more likely.. Daniel -- 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/