From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751315AbeDDIBs (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Apr 2018 04:01:48 -0400 Received: from atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.26.193]:59696 "EHLO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751255AbeDDIBo (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Apr 2018 04:01:44 -0400 Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2018 10:01:42 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: Arnd Bergmann , Linus Torvalds , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-arch , James Hogan , David Howells , "moderated list:PANASONIC MN10300..." , Hirokazu Takata , Lennox Wu , Aaron Wu , Bryan Wu , Chris Metcalf , Jesper Nilsson Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] arch: remove obsolete architecture ports Message-ID: <20180404080142.GC9342@amd> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="UFHRwCdBEJvubb2X" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --UFHRwCdBEJvubb2X Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue 2018-04-03 11:18:15, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 9:54 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 8:57 PM, Linus Torvalds > > wrote: > > Regarding a possible revert, that would indeed involve reverting > > multiple patches for most architectures, plus parts of at least these > > three: > > > > Documentation: arch-support: remove obsolete architectures > > treewide: simplify Kconfig dependencies for removed archs > > ktest: remove obsolete architectures > > > > For those, I went the other way, and removed all architectures at > > once to simplify my work and to avoid touching the same files up > > to eight times with interdependent patches (which couldn't > > be reverted without conflicts either). > > > > There are a couple of driver removal patches that got picked up > > into subsystem trees instead of this tree, so a full revert would also > > involve finding other drivers, but if you prefer to have the patches > > completely split up by arch, I could rework the series that way. >=20 > In reality, a resurrection may not be implemented as a pure revert, but as > the addition of a new architecture, implemented using modern features (DT, > CCF, ...). By insisting on new features instead of pure revert + incremental updates, you pretty much make sure resurection will not be possible :-(. Pavel --=20 (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blo= g.html --UFHRwCdBEJvubb2X Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEARECAAYFAlrEhmYACgkQMOfwapXb+vKWKACdFSdjPnYHqBYoogKNbLV6gu66 znIAn1yoUxRUhPZkbsUDtB7rZqLNIBhI =Sq8X -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --UFHRwCdBEJvubb2X--