* Olof Johansson <olof@xxxxxxxxx> [131029 10:40]: > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Daniel Walker <dwalker@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Personally I think splitting mach- stuff isn't very useful or > > interesting.. There's just no technical reason for it, for example x86 > > and x86_64 was a win from my perspective , there's a lot more reason to > > keep similar things together than to split things up. > > There are definitely valid technical reasons for it; the old and new > platforms share no code, and the legacy platforms are unlikely to be > updated to modern infrastructure anytime soon. Other platforms are > managed in similar manners, such as OMAP, imx/mxs, etc. Yeah there are still few valid reasons to have separate mach directories. The main reason why mach-omap2 was originally set up separately from mach-omap1 was because the IO space was different. And we could not properly deal with that until CONFIG_ARM_PATCH_PHYS_VIRT few years ago. So we placed the shared code into plat-omap, which worked OK but is not really needed any longer with device tree. We have only dmtimer and legacy DMA code left in plat-omap pretty much. And those will be moved to live under drivers/. Even with most issues fixed, it still does not not make sense to merge mach-omap1 and mach-omap2. For example, even if somebody wanted to do it as a hobby project, we'd have to compile things with v4 or v5 flags, which won't work properly for SMP cores at least :) Regards, Tony -- 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