[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120503134546.GB7788@game.jcrosoft.org>
Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 15:45:46 +0200
From: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@...osoft.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org, Deepak Saxena <dsaxena@...aro.org>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, shawn.guo@...aro.org,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>,
Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@...sung.com>,
Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
David Brown <davidb@...eaurora.org>,
Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net>,
Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@...il.com>,
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>
Subject: Re: Making ARM multiplatform kernels DT-only?
On 13:50 Thu 03 May , Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I've been discussing multiplatform kernels with a few people recently,
> and we will have a lot of discussion sessions about this at Linaro
> Connect in Hong Kong.
>
> One question that came up repeatedly is whether we should support all
> possible board files for each platform in a multiplatform kernel,
> or just the ones that are already using DT probing. I would like
> to get a quick poll of opinions on that and I've tried to put those
> people on Cc that would be most impacted by this, i.e. the maintainers
> for platforms that have both DT and non-DT board files at the moment.
>
> My feeling is that we should just mandate DT booting for multiplatform
> kernels, because it significantly reduces the combinatorial space
> at compile time, avoids a lot of legacy board files that we cannot
> test anyway, reduces the total kernel size and gives an incentive
> for people to move forward to DT with their existing boards.
Acked-by: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@...osoft.com>
>
> The counterargument is that we won't be able to support all the
> boards we currently do when the user switches on multiplatform,
> but I think that is acceptable.
> Note that I would still want to allow users to build platforms
> separately in order to enable the ATAG style board files, even
> for platforms that are not multiplatform capable.
>
> Other opinions?
it will also avoid us alot of trouble and work to fix old platform that we can
not even test
Best Regards,
J.
--
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