Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752541Ab0LOWh1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Dec 2010 17:37:27 -0500 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.187]:64800 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751946Ab0LOWhY (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Dec 2010 17:37:24 -0500 From: Arnd Bergmann To: David Brown Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] msm: io: I/O register definitions for MSM8960 Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 23:37:19 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/2.6.31-22-generic; KDE/4.3.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Stepan Moskovchenko , linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <1292384961-8851-1-git-send-email-stepanm@codeaurora.org> <201012151740.24933.arnd@arndb.de> <20101215220317.GA22394@huya.qualcomm.com> In-Reply-To: <20101215220317.GA22394@huya.qualcomm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201012152337.19475.arnd@arndb.de> X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:r0uXX2pzZy9mKgRMdSMEawL2KrWhc5nnI0baUO1gNSt tIiK+m5bazjAd/6kfy0paeYwv8gBGEl05F+cvMs5XuWQz0pO2c Of/AVjoOI7bV0O/JPqATKgOYbkcKlLdEc+KDWhfmzPP4L7oe3m 22FcpSiLtOF4t8ycZOiOkK4VHimd5G1978uf8HcF8Gv2+Rtjvq qXiFZtlPqYjbUSxW80vfA== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1586 Lines: 35 On Wednesday 15 December 2010, David Brown wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 05:40:24PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > My point was really that they should not be exclusive, even if they > > are rather different. If the code is structured in a more modular > > way, you can turn all MSM/QSD options from the "Qualcomm MSM SoC Type" > > choice into separate "bool" config options. You probably don't want > > to do that now for all the existing ones, but I would suggest you > > try not add more to the pile ;-). > > It's kind of hard to do too much of this, though, until ARM kernels > can be relocated. They mostly all live at different base addresses > (and 8960 might also move). Throw CPU differences into the mix and it > gets messier. > > I'm not saying it isn't solvable, but there are a lot of things that > need to be done to get there. Yes, I understand that it's hard for many reasons, but my impression is that there is a general agreement on the idea. As I said, I don't expect you to fix it all at once, but it shouldn't be too hard to take care when adding new code. We already have infrastructure that deals with different CPU cores in one kernel binary, at least from v5 to v7, and some platforms like omap and realview can already be built for a variety of very different machines without such problems. Arnd -- 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/