Sylwester Nawrocki wrote: > > On 05/16/2011 09:15 AM, Kukjin Kim wrote: > > Sylwester Nawrocki wrote: > > > >> Shouldn't there be some deprecation period for whole s5pc100 support > > removal ? > > > > This is that. But I know, there is no time... > > > >> It looks a bit rude to me that suddenly whole support for the SoC is > > vanished. > > > > Hmm...what did you think about my previous comments: 'removing some > > "mach-s5pxxxx"s'? > > I would expect one kernel release period of so notice for such a change. > But it doesn't have to be true in this specific case. > > > > >> I know at least one active user of mainline FIMC driver @ s5pc100. > > > > Do you _really_ want to keep it in later mainline? > > I don't personally have interest in maintaining this driver for s5pc100. > It just adds unnecessary complexity to my work and in fact I have limited > possibilities now to test the driver on s5pc100. > But if there are users and it really doesn't cost much to keep the support > for s5pc100 why bother to remove it? Just to get rid of one mach-* directory ? > > > > > I was not sure we should keep continually 6442 and C100 in mainline when I > > decided to removing 'mach-s5pxxxx'. > > I really don't care about 6442, but what's the problem with s5pc100 ? > Is it being discontinued ? Or there is little users of it ? > > I would much more like to see attempts to consolidate the code rather than > simply removing it. > Hi Sylwester, Thanks for your opinion :) Please refer to my reply on this thread. Thanks. Best regards, Kgene. -- Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Senior Engineer, SW Solution Development Team, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |