Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755863Ab2ECNxQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 May 2012 09:53:16 -0400 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.8]:50005 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753690Ab2ECNxP (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 May 2012 09:53:15 -0400 From: Arnd Bergmann To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Making ARM multiplatform kernels DT-only? Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 13:50:35 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/3.4.0-rc3; KDE/4.3.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org, "Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD" , Deepak Saxena , "Russell King - ARM Linux" , Tony Lindgren , Linus Walleij , shawn.guo@linaro.org, Sascha Hauer , Magnus Damm , Kukjin Kim , Olof Johansson , David Brown , Nicolas Pitre , Haojian Zhuang , Jason Cooper , Nicolas Ferre MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201205031350.35476.arnd@arndb.de> X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:DaBBBk9vg9taRUk0qgE5kwBgz4nRz1L08PsIz1ab//l j5Tj8qXUBVCRP+sBh5oZ1of8BO+kgwfg2ctBWZIPdpSJWR+w+X iVT+F5Gae3zJ+76ZmPdKJsdLRWErbNbojZOyl3XKDC4Am1qbUf yI8n3aW14dDXHdANuWJtjcmZQYkqSRtnCRDBl6SKqNMUaus5dc nkKFIJn58tmUtHk+dyAwy9BCVuGbXWSVh3RyOZTeIWPHqXknum hmAMtUzOafCO6Iui3ee1mBBAR7iydCWQoW+kmUW5eOTUsUcp8O HoHs6inqw6bvheJvsMGlJBpvDAh365d2cCuDjkUn7dKdyAMlEb A1zb6nPD4Kye9d9fRB/4= Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1523 Lines: 34 Hi everyone, I've been discussing multiplatform kernels with a few people recently, and we will have a lot of discussion sessions about this at Linaro Connect in Hong Kong. One question that came up repeatedly is whether we should support all possible board files for each platform in a multiplatform kernel, or just the ones that are already using DT probing. I would like to get a quick poll of opinions on that and I've tried to put those people on Cc that would be most impacted by this, i.e. the maintainers for platforms that have both DT and non-DT board files at the moment. My feeling is that we should just mandate DT booting for multiplatform kernels, because it significantly reduces the combinatorial space at compile time, avoids a lot of legacy board files that we cannot test anyway, reduces the total kernel size and gives an incentive for people to move forward to DT with their existing boards. The counterargument is that we won't be able to support all the boards we currently do when the user switches on multiplatform, but I think that is acceptable. Note that I would still want to allow users to build platforms separately in order to enable the ATAG style board files, even for platforms that are not multiplatform capable. Other opinions? 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/