On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 04:08:27PM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote: > Olof Johansson <olof@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > I would be very happy to take more code for the older Qualcomm chipset > > to enable full functionality for them, but it's been my impression > > that far from all that is needed to make it a useful platform is in > > the upstream kernel, and there's been no signs of more of it showing > > up at least in the last two years. > > > > So we have a bit of a stalemate here -- the current Qualcomm team > > wants to avoid having to deal too much with the legacy platforms -- > > they are technically quite different from the current platforms and > > the divergence makes it hard to deal with supporting it all in a > > modern way without risking regressions. I tend to agree with them. > > As do I. > > > Just like omap split between omap1 and omap2plus, I think it's a time > > to create a mach-qcom instead, and move the modern (v7, most likely) > > platforms there -- enable them with device tree, modern framework > > infrastructure, etc. That way you can keep older platforms in mach-msm > > without risk of regressions, and they have a clean base to start on > > with their later platforms. > > I think this split approach is a good compromise. > > If the maintainers of the current older platforms wish to bring them up > to modern frameworks, we can consider combining again. If not, they the > older platforms will take the same path as the rest of the older > platforms that slowly fade away. > So the current users of those platforms are, what SOL ? Daniel -- 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
