All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
Cc: "Masahiro Yamada" <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	"Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@arndb.de>, "Rob Herring" <robh@kernel.org>,
	"Emilio López" <emilio@elopez.com.ar>,
	"Mark Brown" <broonie@kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC..."
	<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 12:02:17 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAOesGMij8KUR_AxBZmUU7cM1qnvTSUjdPr=_EKsW_s5DoEmcfg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160403182543.GQ19428@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>

On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
<linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> 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/
>
> - The ability to use obj-y rather than machine-y, where both already
>   work in the same way.
>
> 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.

Been behind on email so chiming in late, but I agree -- this change
isn't bringing enough benefit to justify the churn.

Overall we're looking at adding as little new code into arch/arm/mach*
as possible, so making it easier to structure up and build more
elaborate contents in their corner of it seems a bit like a step
backwards.


-Olof

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: olof@lixom.net (Olof Johansson)
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 12:02:17 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAOesGMij8KUR_AxBZmUU7cM1qnvTSUjdPr=_EKsW_s5DoEmcfg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160403182543.GQ19428@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>

On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
<linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> 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/
>
> - The ability to use obj-y rather than machine-y, where both already
>   work in the same way.
>
> 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.

Been behind on email so chiming in late, but I agree -- this change
isn't bringing enough benefit to justify the churn.

Overall we're looking at adding as little new code into arch/arm/mach*
as possible, so making it easier to structure up and build more
elaborate contents in their corner of it seems a bit like a step
backwards.


-Olof

  parent reply	other threads:[~2016-04-04 19:02 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
2016-04-04  1:57     ` Masahiro Yamada
2016-04-04 19:02   ` Olof Johansson [this message]
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='CAOesGMij8KUR_AxBZmUU7cM1qnvTSUjdPr=_EKsW_s5DoEmcfg@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=olof@lixom.net \
    --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=robh@kernel.org \
    --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.