On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 4:22 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tuesday 08 April 2014 10:50:39 Liviu Dudau wrote: >> 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. > > Fair enough. > > My approach to the asm-generic infrastruction has mostly been to ensure > that whoever adds a new architecture has to make things easier for the > next person. That's a good rule. But if we add a generic implementation used only by one architecture, the overall complexity has increased (we added new unshared code), so the next person has to look at N+1 existing implementations. If we even convert one existing arch, that seems like an improvement: we have N implementations with one being used by at least two arches. 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
