Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754766Ab3J3XZq (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Oct 2013 19:25:46 -0400 Received: from fifo99.com ([67.223.236.141]:42915 "EHLO fifo99.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751670Ab3J3XZp (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Oct 2013 19:25:45 -0400 Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 16:25:32 -0700 From: Daniel Walker To: Kevin Hilman Cc: Olof Johansson , David Brown , Bryan Huntsman , Russell King , Arnd Bergmann , "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: <20131030232412.GA10229@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> <87ob66nyqc.fsf@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87ob66nyqc.fsf@linaro.org> 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: 1830 Lines: 40 On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 04:08:27PM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote: > Olof Johansson writes: > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > As do I. > > > 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. > > I think this split approach is a good compromise. > > If the maintainers of the current older platforms wish to bring them up > to modern frameworks, we can consider combining again. If not, they the > older platforms will take the same path as the rest of the older > platforms that slowly fade away. > So the current users of those platforms are, what SOL ? 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/