From: grinberg@compulab•co.il (Igor Grinberg)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists•infradead.org
Subject: Update: ARM Sub-Architecture Maintainers workshop at Kernel Summit 2011
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 11:14:01 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4E955A59.4090705@compulab.co.il> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4E81CEB8.4090908@compulab.co.il>
On 09/27/11 16:25, Igor Grinberg wrote:
> On 08/30/11 09:00, Grant Likely wrote:
>>
>> Agenda proposals (Thanks to Nicolas and Olof):
>> - DT bindings for GPIO and pin mux
>> - the pin mux subsystem from linusw (especially if it is still RFC by
>> then)
>> - progress with the single zImage work
>> - presentation/status of the DMA and memory management work wrt CMA
>> (some SOC specific hacks should go away once this is available)
>> - DT porting progress
>> - boot architecture status
>> - Report from Arnd on experiences from first arm-soc merge window
>> - what worked well and where's room for improvement?
>> - Any particular SoC workflow that should be tuned to make his life easier?
>> - Where are the gaps where he needs help right now?
>> - How did it work out for the SoC maintainers?
>>
>> Still accepting more proposals. Send me the topics you are burning to discuss.
>
> One of the LPC2011's bottom lines was:
> "We need more people involved in ARM maintainership to help
> the sub-architecture maintainers do a better job on
> review/consolidation/generalization/etc. of the code."
>
> Despite the major goal of the DT to reduce the SoC and
> board specific code to absolute minimum, there will still be cases
> (e.g. discrete power management circuitry) when there is no
> appropriate DT solution available and the board file
> is a necessity. Also there are already many boards that will remain
> and will not be converted to DT.
>
> Bringing all the above together, I'd like to propose a new "job"
> for maintaining board specific code on a cross-platform basis.
>
> Pros:
> 1) There might (I have not checked this, but I'm sure there is) be
> code in the existing board files (that are not likely to go away
> at least in a couple of years) that can be consolidated and
> may be even in a cross-platform manner.
> 2) Lower the work load from SoC maintainers (that don't have enough
> time to care much about the board specific changes).
> 3) Some more eyes to review the newly submitted code.
>
> Cons:
> 1) Resulting overhead for the code to go upstream.
> 2) Possible addition of merge conflicts.
>
>
> I'd like to hear, what do you think of the above proposal?
Any thoughts? Yes? No? Why? WTF?
--
Regards,
Igor.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-10-12 9:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-08-30 6:00 Update: ARM Sub-Architecture Maintainers workshop at Kernel Summit 2011 Grant Likely
2011-08-30 6:27 ` Igor Grinberg
2011-08-30 13:44 ` Grant Likely
2011-08-30 14:00 ` Igor Grinberg
2011-08-30 19:17 ` [Ksummit-2011-discuss] " Chris Ball
2011-08-30 12:55 ` Nicolas Ferre
2011-08-30 13:56 ` Wolfram Sang
2011-08-30 14:42 ` David Brown
2011-08-30 16:58 ` Paul Walmsley
2011-08-30 19:51 ` Olof Johansson
2011-08-30 23:42 ` Stephen Warren
2011-08-31 5:50 ` Marek Szyprowski
2011-08-30 23:10 ` Pavel Machek
2011-08-31 1:29 ` Marek Vasut
2011-08-31 2:31 ` Bryan Wu
2011-08-31 2:58 ` Marek Vasut
2011-08-31 3:07 ` Bryan Wu
2011-08-31 18:57 ` Grant Likely
2011-08-31 2:57 ` Bryan Wu
2011-08-31 2:59 ` Marek Vasut
2011-08-31 3:08 ` Bryan Wu
2011-08-31 4:01 ` Marek Vasut
2011-08-31 5:52 ` Eric Miao
2011-08-31 15:15 ` Marc Zyngier
2011-09-27 13:25 ` Igor Grinberg
2011-10-12 9:14 ` Igor Grinberg [this message]
2011-10-12 9:19 ` Catalin Marinas
2011-10-17 17:36 ` Igor Grinberg
2011-10-12 15:33 ` Nicolas Pitre
2011-10-17 17:31 ` Igor Grinberg
2011-10-12 10:01 ` Catalin Marinas
2011-10-12 15:00 ` Nicolas Pitre
2011-10-17 8:54 ` Catalin Marinas
2011-10-17 10:56 ` Marek Vasut
2011-10-20 13:35 ` Linus Walleij
2011-10-20 13:48 ` Jonathan Cameron
2011-10-20 14:25 ` Barry Song
2011-10-20 14:46 ` Mark Brown
2011-10-20 14:55 ` Jonathan Cameron
2011-10-21 9:39 ` Barry Song
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=4E955A59.4090705@compulab.co.il \
--to=grinberg@compulab$(echo .)co.il \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists$(echo .)infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox