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: <20131030232412.GA10229@fifo99.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2013 16:25:32 -0700
From:	Daniel Walker <dwalker@...o99.com>
To:	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>
Cc:	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
	David Brown <davidb@...eaurora.org>,
	Bryan Huntsman <bryanh@...eaurora.org>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	"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

On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 04:08:27PM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net> writes:
> 
> > I would be very happy to take more code for the older Qualcomm chipset
> > to enable full functionality for them, but it's been my impression
> > that far from all that is needed to make it a useful platform is in
> > the upstream kernel, and there's been no signs of more of it showing
> > up at least in the last two years.
> >
> > So we have a bit of a stalemate here -- the current Qualcomm team
> > wants to avoid having to deal too much with the legacy platforms --
> > they are technically quite different from the current platforms and
> > the divergence makes it hard to deal with supporting it all in a
> > modern way without risking regressions. I tend to agree with them.
> 
> As do I.
> 
> > Just like omap split between omap1 and omap2plus, I think it's a time
> > to create a mach-qcom instead, and move the modern (v7, most likely)
> > platforms there -- enable them with device tree, modern framework
> > infrastructure, etc. That way you can keep older platforms in mach-msm
> > without risk of regressions, and they have a clean base to start on
> > with their later platforms.
> 
> I think this split approach is a good compromise.
> 
> If the maintainers of the current older platforms wish to bring them up
> to modern frameworks, we can consider combining again.  If not, they the
> older platforms will take the same path as the rest of the older
> platforms that slowly fade away.
> 

So the current users of those platforms are, what SOL ?

Daniel
--
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/