All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	"Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@arndb.de>,
	"Olof Johansson" <olof@lixom.net>,
	"Rob Herring" <robh@kernel.org>,
	"Emilio López" <emilio@elopez.com.ar>,
	"Mark Brown" <broonie@kernel.org>,
	"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC support"
	<linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org>,
	"Matthias Brugger" <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
	"Marcus Cooper" <codekipper@gmail.com>,
	"Maxime Ripard" <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/9] ARM: start to move arch/arm/mach-* to arch/arm/platforms/*
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 10:57:56 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAK7LNAR4sNgUwGskvNZcs84aDsmUjifff7V8xUjCjdjCETbtLQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160403182543.GQ19428@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>

Hi Russell,

2016-04-04 3:25 GMT+09:00 Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>:
> On Sun, Apr 03, 2016 at 11:39:18PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
>> We have growing number of mach-* directories in arch/arm, and I guess
>> it might be a good time to discuss moving them into a sub-directory.
>
> What does it buy us?  Let me summarise the actual change:
>
> - Move up to 71 arch/arm/mach-* directories to arch/arm/platforms/*,
>   which just means another level of directory structure.  We still
>   end up with up to 71 directories in arch/arm/platforms/

True, but we can separate non-SoC directories (kernel/, mm/, configs/, etc.)
from mach- directories, at least.


> - The ability to use obj-y rather than machine-y, where both already
>   work in the same way.

Yes, but Kbuild standard Makefiles might provide more flexible
directory structures
to tidy up similar SoC families from the same vendor.

For example,

arch/arm/platforms/samsung/
arch/arm/platforms/samsung/exynos/
arch/arm/platforms/samsung/s3c64xx/

instead of

arch/arm/plat-samsung/
arch/arm/mach-exynos/
arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/

I am missing something, though.



> Is there anything I missed?
>
> If that is all, then I really do not like this change - it's seems
> to be churn for no benefit, and that's something we really should be
> minimising.  Linus Torvalds has historically moaned at the ARM
> architecture for stuff like this.

OK.


-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: yamada.masahiro@socionext.com (Masahiro Yamada)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [RFC PATCH 0/9] ARM: start to move arch/arm/mach-* to arch/arm/platforms/*
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 10:57:56 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAK7LNAR4sNgUwGskvNZcs84aDsmUjifff7V8xUjCjdjCETbtLQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160403182543.GQ19428@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>

Hi Russell,

2016-04-04 3:25 GMT+09:00 Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>:
> On Sun, Apr 03, 2016 at 11:39:18PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
>> We have growing number of mach-* directories in arch/arm, and I guess
>> it might be a good time to discuss moving them into a sub-directory.
>
> What does it buy us?  Let me summarise the actual change:
>
> - Move up to 71 arch/arm/mach-* directories to arch/arm/platforms/*,
>   which just means another level of directory structure.  We still
>   end up with up to 71 directories in arch/arm/platforms/

True, but we can separate non-SoC directories (kernel/, mm/, configs/, etc.)
from mach- directories, at least.


> - The ability to use obj-y rather than machine-y, where both already
>   work in the same way.

Yes, but Kbuild standard Makefiles might provide more flexible
directory structures
to tidy up similar SoC families from the same vendor.

For example,

arch/arm/platforms/samsung/
arch/arm/platforms/samsung/exynos/
arch/arm/platforms/samsung/s3c64xx/

instead of

arch/arm/plat-samsung/
arch/arm/mach-exynos/
arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/

I am missing something, though.



> Is there anything I missed?
>
> If that is all, then I really do not like this change - it's seems
> to be churn for no benefit, and that's something we really should be
> minimising.  Linus Torvalds has historically moaned at the ARM
> architecture for stuff like this.

OK.


-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada

  parent reply	other threads:[~2016-04-04  1:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-04-03 14:39 [RFC PATCH 0/9] ARM: start to move arch/arm/mach-* to arch/arm/platforms/* Masahiro Yamada
2016-04-03 14:39 ` Masahiro Yamada
2016-04-03 14:39 ` Masahiro Yamada
2016-04-03 14:39 ` [RFC PATCH 1/9] ARM: prepare arch/arm/platforms for immigration Masahiro Yamada
2016-04-03 14:39   ` Masahiro Yamada
2016-04-03 14:39 ` [RFC PATCH 2/9] ARM: uniphier: move mach-uniphier/ to platforms/uniphier/ Masahiro Yamada
2016-04-03 14:39   ` Masahiro Yamada
2016-04-03 14:39 ` [RFC PATCH 3/9] ARM: zynq: move mach-zynq/ to platforms/zynq/ Masahiro Yamada
2016-04-03 14:39   ` Masahiro Yamada
2016-04-03 14:39 ` [RFC PATCH 4/9] ARM: sunxi: move mach-sunxi/ to platforms/sunxi/ Masahiro Yamada
2016-04-03 14:39   ` Masahiro Yamada
2016-04-03 14:39 ` [RFC PATCH 5/9] ARM: socfpga: move mach-socfpga/ to platforms/socfpga/ Masahiro Yamada
2016-04-03 14:39   ` Masahiro Yamada
2016-04-03 14:39 ` [RFC PATCH 6/9] ARM: rockchip: move mach-rockchip/ to platforms/rockchip/ Masahiro Yamada
2016-04-03 14:39   ` Masahiro Yamada
2016-04-03 14:39 ` [RFC PATCH 7/9] ARM: mediatek: move mach-mediatek/ to platforms/mediatek/ Masahiro Yamada
2016-04-03 14:39   ` Masahiro Yamada
2016-04-03 14:39   ` Masahiro Yamada
2016-04-03 14:39 ` [RFC PATCH 8/9] ARM: highbank: move mach-highbank/ to platforms/highbank/ Masahiro Yamada
2016-04-03 14:39   ` Masahiro Yamada
2016-04-03 14:39 ` [RFC PATCH 9/9] ARM: bcm: move mach-bcm/ to platforms/bcm/ Masahiro Yamada
2016-04-03 14:39   ` Masahiro Yamada
2016-04-03 18:25 ` [RFC PATCH 0/9] ARM: start to move arch/arm/mach-* to arch/arm/platforms/* Russell King - ARM Linux
2016-04-03 18:25   ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2016-04-04  1:53   ` Florian Fainelli
2016-04-04  1:53     ` Florian Fainelli
2016-04-04  1:57   ` Masahiro Yamada [this message]
2016-04-04  1:57     ` Masahiro Yamada
2016-04-04 19:02   ` Olof Johansson
2016-04-04 19:02     ` Olof Johansson

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=CAK7LNAR4sNgUwGskvNZcs84aDsmUjifff7V8xUjCjdjCETbtLQ@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=yamada.masahiro@socionext.com \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=broonie@kernel.org \
    --cc=codekipper@gmail.com \
    --cc=emilio@elopez.com.ar \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=matthias.bgg@gmail.com \
    --cc=maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com \
    --cc=olof@lixom.net \
    --cc=robh@kernel.org \
    /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.