On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 5:36 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > I think migrating other architectures to use the same code should be > a separate effort from adding a generic implementation that can be > used by arm64. It's probably a good idea to have patches to convert > arm32 and/or microblaze. Let me reiterate that I am 100% in favor of replacing arch-specific code with more generic implementations. However, I am not 100% in favor of doing it as separate efforts (although maybe I could be convinced). The reasons I hesitate are that (1) if only one architecture uses a new "generic" implementation, we really don't know whether it is generic enough, (2) until I see the patches to convert other architectures, I have to assume that I'm the one who will write them, and (3) as soon as we add the code to drivers/pci, it becomes partly my headache to maintain it, even if only one arch benefits from it. Please don't think I'm questioning anyone's intent or good will. It's just that I understand the business pressures, and I know how hard it can be to justify this sort of work to one's management, especially after the immediate problem has been solved. Bjorn -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
