Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751951AbaANXoo (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Jan 2014 18:44:44 -0500 Received: from bear.ext.ti.com ([192.94.94.41]:34761 "EHLO bear.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750918AbaANXol (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Jan 2014 18:44:41 -0500 Message-ID: <52D5CBC9.5020201@ti.com> Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 18:44:09 -0500 From: Santosh Shilimkar User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nishanth Menon CC: Linaro Kernel , Russell King , Patch Tracking , Tony Lindgren , Taras Kondratiuk , Victor Kamensky , open list , Tero Kristo , Linaro Networking , "linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP4: sleep: byteswap data for big-endian References: <1389625399-24087-1-git-send-email-taras.kondratiuk@linaro.org> <52D404DE.2020806@ti.com> <52D55CE5.1060902@ti.com> <52D5A60C.7080800@ti.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 14 January 2014 04:13 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote: > On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Santosh Shilimkar > wrote: >> >>> ok.. some sort of Linaro thing about which I have no background about >>> - but dont really care in this context. >>> >> Nothing related Linaro. Its just that platforms are supporting ARM BE >> mode and Linaro folks had working patches for Panda. So I suggested >> to get them on the lists. > > I tend to think -> is this with OFF mode and CPUidle completely > working? All context save and restore works with this? on HS and GP > devices with BE mode builds? works on SDP4430,60 variations, > considered reuse with AM43xx which could use parts of that logic? > > I mean to indicate that terms like "works on panda" tends always to be relative. > Fair enough. > It is nice to see it as a proof of concept, but I'd hate to see some > dead code lying around in kernel and folks blindly following suit and > introducing macros for new assembly for a feature that in practice > just one group of folks care about and creates additional burden for > rest of folks trying to keep that functionality going as we jump from > one "device tree" style churn to another "framework"? Not to mean that > good features should be kept away.. but personally, I could not find > convincing arguments in this case.. > I haven't looked at patch myself but as you pointed out if it adds dead code and makes the code un-readable then probably that something we shouldn't merge. Regards, Santosh -- 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/