On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:30:29AM +0100, Liviu Dudau wrote: > On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 09:59:26AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > Although a bit late, I'm raising this now and hopefully we'll come to a > > conclusion soon. Delaying arm64 PCIe support even further is not a real > > option, which leaves us with: > > > > 1. Someone else (with enough PCIe knowledge) volunteering to take over > > soon or > > 2. Dropping Liviu's work and going for an arm64-specific implementation > > (most likely based on the arm32 implementation, see below) [...] > > In conclusion, unless someone volunteers for the first option fairly > > soon, we'll post the alternative patches for review and take it from > > there. > > That would be a huge step backwards IMO and a huge dissapointment. If > you go with the alternative patches from Will you will basically reset > every partner's implementation that has been built on top of my > patches (when they did so with the understanding that my series will be > the one ARM will support and publish) *and* make anyone's attempt to > create a generic implementation harder, as they will have to undo this > code to remove the arch-specific parts. I fully agree and the alternative patchset is definitely _not_ my preferred solution. You can read this email as a request for help to complete the work (whether it comes from ARM, Linaro or other interested parties). I don't mean taking over the whole patchset but potentially helping with other arch conversion (microblaze, arm multi-platform). (however, if the generic PCIe work won't happen in reasonable time, we need to set some deadline rather than keeping the patchset out of tree indefinitely) -- Catalin -- 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
