Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:08:17 -0700 | From | Daniel Walker <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/4] ARM: msm: Remove 7x00 support |
| |
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 08:37:28AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote: > Daniel, > > 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.
Some of the platform code he's removing is not compiled right now. I would have liked to make it compile, but I don't care that much (and they don't either) ..
> 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.
Oh what a sob story .. They can't claim to maintain msm except for the parts they don't like that much, thats not how it works. If you have a technical reason why you think hard to maintain code is "hard to deal with", please put that forth .
If they want they can start submitting their patches to me, and I can deal with their "hard to deal with" stuff..
> 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.
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.
The whole risking regressions, do you have proof of why you think that's happening ? The inverse seems more likely..
Daniel
| |