From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
arm@kernel.org, Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: uniphier: drop code for old DT binding
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2016 09:49:51 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6243293.lmvRqvQAd6@wuerfel> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAK7LNAT0n=VdfOmZ0dHaoVbD9jEsa16tY__9sVkuuuStMYA7WA@mail.gmail.com>
On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 3:30:03 PM CEST Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> Hi Arnd.
>
> 2016-05-31 18:21 GMT+09:00 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>:
> > On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 5:17:08 PM CEST Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> >> Commit 307d40c56b0c ("ARM: uniphier: rework SMP code to support new
> >> System Bus binding") added a new DT binding for SMP code, but still
> >> kept old code for the backward compatibility.
> >>
> >> Linux 4.6 was out with both bindings supported, so it should not
> >> hurt to drop the old code now.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
> >>
> >
> > That explanation is in general not sufficient. Are you sure that
> > nobody is shipping a machine with their own dts file that is not
> > merged upstream, and that there are no bootloaders that have a
> > hardcoded dtb file that we need to support indefinitely?
> >
>
> I have to confess that almost no one (except me) uses this upstreamed
> code directly.
> It can boot, but it is almost useless for practical uses (at least for
> production level)
> because it still lacks lots of drivers.
>
> Our products based on ARM 32bit SoCs were shipped with old kernel
> (without device tree) that were never upstreamed.
That's fine, a lot of companies work like this when the upstreaming
starts, just mention this in the changelog.
> Socionext is now trying to change the development procedure
> and the situation will be much better for ARM64 SoC products; it will be
> more community-based development, although they are not shipped yet.
>
> So, the answer is, nobody is shipping ARM32 products using this upstream code.
> Device Tree is not used in the first place.
> (But, I still believe I should keep upstreaming.)
Ok.
Arnd
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] ARM: uniphier: drop code for old DT binding
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2016 09:49:51 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6243293.lmvRqvQAd6@wuerfel> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAK7LNAT0n=VdfOmZ0dHaoVbD9jEsa16tY__9sVkuuuStMYA7WA@mail.gmail.com>
On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 3:30:03 PM CEST Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> Hi Arnd.
>
> 2016-05-31 18:21 GMT+09:00 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>:
> > On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 5:17:08 PM CEST Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> >> Commit 307d40c56b0c ("ARM: uniphier: rework SMP code to support new
> >> System Bus binding") added a new DT binding for SMP code, but still
> >> kept old code for the backward compatibility.
> >>
> >> Linux 4.6 was out with both bindings supported, so it should not
> >> hurt to drop the old code now.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
> >>
> >
> > That explanation is in general not sufficient. Are you sure that
> > nobody is shipping a machine with their own dts file that is not
> > merged upstream, and that there are no bootloaders that have a
> > hardcoded dtb file that we need to support indefinitely?
> >
>
> I have to confess that almost no one (except me) uses this upstreamed
> code directly.
> It can boot, but it is almost useless for practical uses (at least for
> production level)
> because it still lacks lots of drivers.
>
> Our products based on ARM 32bit SoCs were shipped with old kernel
> (without device tree) that were never upstreamed.
That's fine, a lot of companies work like this when the upstreaming
starts, just mention this in the changelog.
> Socionext is now trying to change the development procedure
> and the situation will be much better for ARM64 SoC products; it will be
> more community-based development, although they are not shipped yet.
>
> So, the answer is, nobody is shipping ARM32 products using this upstream code.
> Device Tree is not used in the first place.
> (But, I still believe I should keep upstreaming.)
Ok.
Arnd
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-06-01 7:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-05-31 8:17 [PATCH] ARM: uniphier: drop code for old DT binding Masahiro Yamada
2016-05-31 8:17 ` Masahiro Yamada
2016-05-31 9:21 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-05-31 9:21 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-06-01 6:30 ` Masahiro Yamada
2016-06-01 6:30 ` Masahiro Yamada
2016-06-01 7:49 ` Arnd Bergmann [this message]
2016-06-01 7:49 ` Arnd Bergmann
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=6243293.lmvRqvQAd6@wuerfel \
--to=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=arm@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
--cc=yamada.masahiro@socionext.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.