On Thursday 02 May 2013 17:09:07 Suman Anna wrote: > On 04/28/2013 11:07 PM, Jassi Brar wrote: > > Now, we could either call it (effectively the TI's framework with > > quirks for STE) as the "Common API" and then dismantle and convert it > > patch by patch (authors and I seem to agree many things need to be > > changed and implemented). > > OR we do it reasonably right the first time even if that means yet > > another release. IMHO we should go for slow but steady thing. > > I think it is your call here, either of the above approaches would > definitely involve some rework on the framework as well as both the OMAP > & ST mailboxes. Atleast for OMAP, the code exists in kernel but disabled > currently due to the multi-platform support. It is pending on the move > to drivers/mailbox folder, and can be enabled just with the first 3 > patches (and another one for renaming generic mailbox.c/.h back to > omap_mailbox.c/.h files if we go the RFC approach) in the series > (irrespective of the framework). TI DSP/Bridge would remain broken > because of the omap dmtimer api dependencies on multi-platform. > > I do not know how much of an impact it is for the ST driver as the > series adds the driver, and would have to wait until the RFC is sorted > out otherwise. I think I'd prefer to drop the branch from the 3.10 queue then and let you all work out a common approach for 3.11. Olof, any other input? Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
