linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] ARM: msm: Remove 7x00 support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20131029184044.GF15154@atomide.com>
Date:	Tue, 29 Oct 2013 11:40:45 -0700
From:	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
To:	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
Cc:	Daniel Walker <dwalker@...o99.com>,
	David Brown <davidb@...eaurora.org>,
	Bryan Huntsman <bryanh@...eaurora.org>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...prootsystems.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] ARM: msm: Remove 7x00 support

* Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net> [131029 10:40]:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Daniel Walker <dwalker@...o99.com> wrote:
> 
> > Personally I think splitting mach- stuff isn't very useful or
> > interesting.. There's just no technical reason for it, for example x86
> > and x86_64 was a win from my perspective , there's a lot more reason to
> > keep similar things together than to split things up.
> 
> There are definitely valid technical reasons for it; the old and new
> platforms share no code, and the legacy platforms are unlikely to be
> updated to modern infrastructure anytime soon. Other platforms are
> managed in similar manners, such as OMAP, imx/mxs, etc.

Yeah there are still few valid reasons to have separate mach directories.

The main reason why mach-omap2 was originally set up separately from
mach-omap1 was because the IO space was different. And we could not
properly deal with that until CONFIG_ARM_PATCH_PHYS_VIRT few years ago.

So we placed the shared code into plat-omap, which worked OK but is
not really needed any longer with device tree. We have only dmtimer
and legacy DMA code left in plat-omap pretty much. And those will be
moved to live under drivers/.

Even with most issues fixed, it still does not not make sense to merge
mach-omap1 and mach-omap2. For example, even if somebody wanted to do it
as a hobby project, we'd have to compile things with v4 or v5 flags,
which won't work properly for SMP cores at least :)

Regards,

Tony
--
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/