On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 06:58:24PM +0100, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> 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.
I understand your concern. I guess the only way to prove my good intentions
is to shut up and show the code.
Liviu
>
> Bjorn
>
--
====================
| I would like to |
| fix the world, |
| but they're not |
| giving me the |
\ source code! /
---------------
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
--
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
