From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756259AbcDDTCU (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Apr 2016 15:02:20 -0400 Received: from mail-ig0-f170.google.com ([209.85.213.170]:38772 "EHLO mail-ig0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752875AbcDDTCT (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Apr 2016 15:02:19 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Originating-IP: [209.65.105.100] In-Reply-To: <20160403182543.GQ19428@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1459694367-18635-1-git-send-email-yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> <20160403182543.GQ19428@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 12:02:17 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/9] ARM: start to move arch/arm/mach-* to arch/arm/platforms/* From: Olof Johansson To: Russell King - ARM Linux Cc: Masahiro Yamada , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Arnd Bergmann , Rob Herring , =?UTF-8?Q?Emilio_L=C3=B3pez?= , Mark Brown , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC..." , Matthias Brugger , Marcus Cooper , Maxime Ripard Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux 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 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: olof@lixom.net (Olof Johansson) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 12:02:17 -0700 Subject: [RFC PATCH 0/9] ARM: start to move arch/arm/mach-* to arch/arm/platforms/* In-Reply-To: <20160403182543.GQ19428@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1459694367-18635-1-git-send-email-yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> <20160403182543.GQ19428@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux 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