On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 11:51:34AM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote: > Daniel Walker <dwalker@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > 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.. > > The wins have already been well described in this thread in terms of > maintenance of newer platforms using modern kernel infrastructure. That's not very concrete .. Can you be specific, and what platforms are we talking about? > > 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. > > Randomness is quite a bit of an exaggeration of what's been proposed > here. No one has proposed anything, as far as I can tell. > These decisions are made on a case-by-case basis and is this case is > being done for ease of maintainence for newer platforms, which may not > be a "technical reason" for you, but is important for overall > maintenance of arm-soc. Who's making this decision ? If there's some reason why maintenance is easier , can you explain it ? That's typically how we make decisions in this community there needs to be a clear reason to do something. > If we do this split, you are more than welcome to demonstrate the > commonality by modernizing mach-msm, combining it with mach-qcom, > removing mach-msm, and then removing all the "confusion." Thanks, why not get it right the first time.. 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
