[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201104011332.35618.arnd@arndb.de>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 13:32:35 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Kevin Hilman <khilman@...com>,
"Russell King - ARM Linux" <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net>,
david@...g.hm, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
David Brown <davidb@...eaurora.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] omap changes for v2.6.39 merge window
On Thursday 31 March 2011, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2011, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> Right, but the problem starts in way simpler areas like irq chips and
> gpio stuff, where lots of the IP cores are similar and trivial enough
> to be shared across many SoC families.
Yes, I'm sure that there are more obvious examples than the ones I've
given, those were just the ones that I had noticed myself.
> Even the OMAP "consolidated" code is silly:
>
> But the code above has 6 cases in the switch because nobody abstracted
> it out consequently. Not to talk about the ifdef mess.
Nice illustration.
Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists