Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933640AbZFLK1R (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Jun 2009 06:27:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1761149AbZFLK1G (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Jun 2009 06:27:06 -0400 Received: from mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org ([204.13.248.72]:64613 "EHLO mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760918AbZFLK1F (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Jun 2009 06:27:05 -0400 X-Mail-Handler: MailHop Outbound by DynDNS X-Originating-IP: 72.249.23.125 X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/mailhop/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information) X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX18H4K3H/XCdBcct0L2xulVp Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 03:26:42 -0700 From: Tony Lindgren To: Nicolas Pitre Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux , Alan Cox , David Miller , swetland@google.com, pavel@ucw.cz, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk, san@android.com, rlove@google.com Subject: Re: HTC Dream aka. t-mobile g1 support Message-ID: <20090612102640.GA7060@atomide.com> References: <20090611.042226.28424489.davem@davemloft.net> <20090611114911.GL795@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20090611.050030.169859977.davem@davemloft.net> <20090611123852.GM795@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20090611135442.6b9ab315@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20090611132134.GA11199@atomide.com> <20090611133736.GP795@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20090611140038.GB11199@atomide.com> <20090611140624.GS795@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2230 Lines: 43 * Nicolas Pitre [090611 10:30]: > On Thu, 11 Jun 2009, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 07:00:39AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > > You suggested pulling each set as they get reviewed into some omap branch > > > in your tree, do you want to try that the next merge window? > > > > If we're following Alan's suggestion, then as I see it you're entirely > > responsible for tracking what's in OMAP, getting it into linux-next and > > (I guess) ultimately sending Linus a pull request for it during the > > merge window. I just become someone who can put their oar into reviewing > > OMAP patches as and when. > > I don't see things exactly that way. > > linux-next is a fully automated "let's dump everything together and see > what is going to explode" kind of tree. There is no patch review except > from those who see their code being dammaged by the blast. And it is > automated in the sense that git pull operations are done automatically, > even if someone deals with the merge conflicts manually afterwards. My > tree can be pulled into linux-next directly or through your tree, or > even through both paths in parallel and git will deal with it just fine. > And at the end of the day the linux-next tree is tossed in the garbage > bin anyway. > > I think that you, as the ARM maintainer, should continue gathering all > the ARM subarchitectures into a coherent ARM tree and arbitrate > conflicts when they occur. You should especially keep a tight control > on the very core ARM code. But everything under arch/arm/mach-* you > should let people maintaining those have control of that themselves and > free yourself from that responsibility as much as possible. The current > directory structure is quite indicative of where the boundaries are > already. This way, if I make a mess of arch/arm/mach-orion5x/* then you > just need to pass the blame straight to me. This is what I was thinking too. Tony -- 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/