Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752576Ab3JaRfp (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Oct 2013 13:35:45 -0400 Received: from fifo99.com ([67.223.236.141]:37036 "EHLO fifo99.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750735Ab3JaRfo (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Oct 2013 13:35:44 -0400 Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 10:35:06 -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: <20131031173506.GA31722@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> <20131030232412.GA10229@fifo99.com> <8738nhnz4s.fsf@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8738nhnz4s.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: 1779 Lines: 36 On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 10:12:03AM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote: > Daniel Walker writes: > > > No. The idea behind splitting them is to allow current platforms with > active maintainers to progress without being held back. The older > platforms can stay and have an opportunity to modernize. > > The kernel is a moving target, without some minimal effort to keep > platforms up to date, the effort to continue to maintain/modernize them > can become more of a pain than it's worth. If maintainers of these older > platforms are willing to put in the work, nobody will be SOL. If > nobody shows interest in modernizing these older platforms (which seems > to be the case based on the last couple years), then it is reasonable > IMO for them to fade away slowly. According to a prior email Tony suggested that OMAP was split for purely technical reasons.. If code is shared in some way , or has synergies, and there's no technical reason to split a sub-architecture, then to me there's no win in splitting things.. It's just more directories, more confusion etc.. The confusion would come from someone wanting to find the code related to a platform, but woops there's a bunch of directories, or code flow and how the sub-architecture is strung together .. Personally I found OMAP very confusing in that regard. ARM and the sub-architectures is already confusing I don't think we need to start compounding the problem by allowing random whatever-you-want sub-directories from every sub-architecture. 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/