Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/5] Basic ARM devicetree support
Date: Wednesday 11th May 2011 21:14:38 UTC (over 7 years ago)
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 10:44:49PM +0200, Grant Likely wrote: > Right now it merges cleanly with linux-next and the resulting tree > builds and boots at least on qemu. Unless you really object, I'm > going to ask Stephen to add the following branch to the /end/ of the > list of trees for linux-next so it can easily be dropped it if it > causes any problems. As far as the set of five patches looks fine to me, I don't have any objections against them. So I think we can merge them for .40. What I've always worried about is the platform stuff, and that's something I'm going to continue worrying about because I don't think we have sufficient review capacity to ensure that we don't end up with lots of stupidities. Eg, we need to properly sort out how we're going to represent stuff so we don't end up with X IRQ controllers, Y clock events, etc. In other words, I don't want to see DT growing an AT91 IRQ controller, PXA IRQ controller, SA1100 IRQ controller, etc. One of the things we must deal with is how do we reduce the amount of IRQ controller code, clock event code, etc that we have in the kernel tree. That means coming up with some generic representation of these facilities and having the right DT properties in place to be able to describe to the generic representation what's required of it. If we can't do that, then DT isn't solving the problem which Linus has complained about, and we will still be in the situation where platform X wants its own IRQ controller, clock event, etc code.