On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 10:12:03AM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote: > Daniel Walker <dwalker@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > No. The idea behind splitting them is to allow current platforms with > active maintainers to progress without being held back. The older > platforms can stay and have an opportunity to modernize. > > The kernel is a moving target, without some minimal effort to keep > platforms up to date, the effort to continue to maintain/modernize them > can become more of a pain than it's worth. If maintainers of these older > platforms are willing to put in the work, nobody will be SOL. If > nobody shows interest in modernizing these older platforms (which seems > to be the case based on the last couple years), then it is reasonable > IMO for them to fade away slowly. According to a prior email Tony suggested that OMAP was split for purely technical reasons.. If code is shared in some way , or has synergies, and there's no technical reason to split a sub-architecture, then to me there's no win in splitting things.. It's just more directories, more confusion etc.. The confusion would come from someone wanting to find the code related to a platform, but woops there's a bunch of directories, or code flow and how the sub-architecture is strung together .. Personally I found OMAP very confusing in that regard. ARM and the sub-architectures is already confusing I don't think we need to start compounding the problem by allowing random whatever-you-want sub-directories from every sub-architecture. 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
