[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D9D8762.3080207@ahsoftware.de>
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 11:44:02 +0200
From: Alexander Holler <holler@...oftware.de>
To: Nico Erfurth <ne@...urth.eu>
CC: Eric Cooper <ecc@....edu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] ARM: Unify setup for Marvell SheevaPlugs and Seagate
DockStars
Am 07.04.2011 11:37, schrieb Nico Erfurth:
> Alexander Holler wrote:
>
>> I wonder how many people believe that either there will be another
>> DockStar with the same HW and GPIOs for the LEDs but more memory (and
>> still without sata) or that there will be another SheevaPlug with just
>> 128MB RAM or that someone could have a reason to change the memory
>> layout using a mem= parameter.
>>
>> For me all that is pretty unlikely.
>
> As Nicolas stated it's not just about "Oh, thats totally unlikely to
> happen!". It is about maintainable code, if somebody looks at it in 3
> years they should not think "WTF?!?!". Using machine ids and the
> generated macros helps to keep the code clean and readable.
Sorry, I can't agree. For me some unique hardware identifier is more
reasonable, than some machine id which comes from outerspace.
And in no way I see any argument for that "clean and readable", at least
not in the patch I posted.
Anyway, I leave this discussion and wish all a nice day.
Regards,
Alexander
--
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