* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > > Alan is definitely right that we're likely to see more of the "non-PC" > > > platforms as x86 tries to do embedded. > > > > I agree, but the way voyager is done is _not_ a good example for the > > embedded x86 folks who will probably start to send in their scoop in > > the foreseable future. > > > > I'm not fundamentally against bringing Voyager back, but it > > needs to go through a useful patch submission and review process > > and not by forcing voyager wreckage into our code base. > > Ok, thanks. This was exactly the kind of thing I wanted to hear. > It does sound like the Voyager tree is doing things I myself > wouldn't approve of as a maintainer, so I can't really say that > I'm upset by the x86 maintainers then not pulling it. I also take back the "it's obsolete" and "it didnt even build" portion of my NAK - that was overboard as Alan and you pointed it out. I think we can work out something and a clear(er) platform driver interface abstraction with a thin cross section to generic x86 code will be helpful to a lot more than just Voyager. In fact we have implemented that largely and it went upstream in 2.6.30, via the massive changes around this bit: 6bda2c8: x86: remove subarchitecture support This is what _already_ happened to other (ex-)subarchitecture code: visws, numaq were frequent trouble spots too, and with the x86-quirks model they basically vanished from our regression lists. So it's a successful model in practice, and if Voyager is done in a similar way we wont see many Voyager problems in the future either. Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
