From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S933351AbbDITiu (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 9 Apr 2015 15:38:50 -0400
Received: from lb2-smtp-cloud2.xs4all.net ([194.109.24.25]:35856 "EHLO
	lb2-smtp-cloud2.xs4all.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933055AbbDITit (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 9 Apr 2015 15:38:49 -0400
Message-ID: <1428608325.13881.37.camel@x220>
Subject: Re: drm/msm/mdp5: undefined CONFIG_MSM_BUS_SCALING
From: Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl>
To: Rob Clark <robdclark@gmail.com>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Valentin Rothberg <valentinrothberg@gmail.com>,
        Hai Li <hali@codeaurora.org>,
        "dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>, rupran@einserver.de,
        stefan.hengelein@fau.de
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2015 21:38:45 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CAF6AEGtUVPAwxXxQ-XAFrMp=HpwVPkyVgCGQgHW6Q_6jKH8tdg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20150409112240.GA4748@station.rsr.lip6.fr>
	 <CAF6AEGtLeQgwnPmMUN=ZECnW_uQ4NQx5XFeNXLjjfEuPe5o-3A@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20150409142024.GA3040@kroah.com>
	 <CAF6AEGsQ=dkREnU5bA=EJCF6o3h+DwcSUd1V2Hvu-rat5-+ypw@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20150409170707.GA7742@kroah.com> <1428603178.13881.20.camel@x220>
	 <CAF6AEGtUVPAwxXxQ-XAFrMp=HpwVPkyVgCGQgHW6Q_6jKH8tdg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.10.4 (3.10.4-4.fc20) 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, 2015-04-09 at 14:54 -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
> We are talking about a driver which does build and run on
> upstream kernel, and which has a few small #ifdef blocks to simplify
> backporting to downstream kernels (which we still do need to use for
> some generations and some devices)

This has comes up before too. My thoughts are basically that since it's
just a few blocks of code (I think we're discussing less than 200 lines
of code split over nine files here) it's hard to see why it would be
such a burden to carry those blocks in a separate tree until everything
can be submitted in actual working condition.


Paul Bolle