On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 12:43:40PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 10:09:14AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 09:46:30AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote: > > > I don't have a good answer though. If it wasn't for the arm64 fork, > > > locating these under arch/arm somewhere would really be the reasonable > > > answer, like we used to do on powerpc. :( > > > > Sounds like yet-another-good reason why there shouldn't be an arm64 > > "fork" at all :( > > > > The arm community created this mess, you all can fix it up, it's not too > > late. > > I said at the time, way before arm64 was merged that it should not be a > separate arch. Every bit of feedback I gave on arm64 got shouted down > by Catalin. ARM64 is Catalin's baby and he wants to protect it at all > costs. My counter arguments weren't probably clear to you. I want to protect a clean, legacy-free AArch64 implementation at all costs. -- Catalin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
