From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755974Ab2IYL5Q (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Sep 2012 07:57:16 -0400 Received: from lebrac.rtp-net.org ([88.191.135.105]:45969 "EHLO lebrac.rtp-net.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755262Ab2IYL5O (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Sep 2012 07:57:14 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 467 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 07:57:14 EDT From: Arnaud Patard (Rtp) To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Andrew Lunn , Thomas Petazzoni , Sebastien Requiem , Russell King , Jason Cooper , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Gregory Clement , Olof Johansson , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Sebastian Hesselbarth Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] ARM: dove: Remove watchdog from DT Organization: RtpNet References: <1348531338-16624-1-git-send-email-sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com> <20120925121439.49c5d0dd@skate> <20120925103141.GG27099@lunn.ch> <201209251120.54255.arnd@arndb.de> Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 13:48:32 +0200 In-Reply-To: <201209251120.54255.arnd@arndb.de> (Arnd Bergmann's message of "Tue, 25 Sep 2012 11:20:53 +0000") Message-ID: <87haqmgw6n.fsf@lebrac.rtp-net.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Arnd Bergmann writes: Hi, > On Tuesday 25 September 2012, Andrew Lunn wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 12:14:39PM +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: >> > On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 11:46:10 +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote: >> > >> > > I principle, i agree. However, i'm not too sure about mach-orion5x & >> > > mach-mv78xx0. orion5x has probably been broken since -rc1 was released >> > > and nobody noticed. In the same time, we got around 5 people >> > > independently reporting kirkwood was broken. We have not received any >> > > new boards for orion5x in the time i've been looking at Orion >> > > platforms. mv78xx0 only has one board which is not a Marvell reference >> > > design. So im tempted to not spend any effort moving orion5x or >> > > mv78xx0 to DT unless these actually hinder the effort of moving the >> > > others to DT. What may make sense is to flatten mv78xx0 and orion5x >> > > into plat-orion and then just watch the bit-rot happen. >> > >> > I'll try to see if I can get people from LaCie to test mach-orion5x as >> > I have a few contacts there, and I'll contact Marvell to see if they can >> > still provide Orion-based platforms. >> >> Marvell supplied my one one reference platform. So i can do some >> testing that the basic infrastructure works. >> >> But the problem with converting to DT is that there is a lot of >> brainless monkey work needed per supported board, and its very easy to >> make a typo. So each board converted to DT needs testing. I don't know >> if we can find testers for all the boards. But should we throw out >> working boards just because we cannot find somebody to test the DT >> version? > > We can throw them out in a staged process. I think the first step should > be ensuring that the platform support works on one (or better a few) > board reliably, and merge support for that into mach-mvebu but leave > the other ~20 board files in mach-orion5x without spending too much work > on them. Whether that means pinctrl support for mach-orion5x is a something > you need to figure out. > > The next step would be to label mach-orion5x as deprecated in Kconfig for > a release and change the help text so it tells people to move to mach-mvebu > and submit dts files. > You seem to imply that every user of mach-orion5x can write a dts file. Please don't forget that afaik some users are using the kernel provided by their $distribution, so if it gets broken it may be noticed months later. Moreover, this kind of user won't notice the Kconfig info as all they'll get is a binary. > After that, we can leave mach-orion5x in the kernel for another release but > completely disable the option to enable it in Kconfig as a last warning. > This means anyone who is using it will have to move on or talk to us about > extending the transition period. > > Finally, we remove mach-orion5x. Hopefully by that time, everyone who is > using it will have contributed a dts file for it. > >> > Regarding mv78xx0, I agree that I'm not sure what to do. The number of >> > supported platforms is small. Should we simply mark mv78xx0 deprecated >> > now, wait a few release cycles to see if anyone shows up, and see what >> > to do at this point? > > We should let Sebastien Requiem comment. He is the only person outside of > Marvell who has contributed a board file for mv78xx0. If he's interested in > keeping it alive, he's hopefully also able to find the time to test the > devicetree version of that platform in mach-mvebu. Similarly, if anyone > has the MASA reference design, that one could be moved over to mach-mvebu > first. There are some mv78xx0 (BP) dev boards used in Debian infrastructure, so at least, would nice to not break mv78xx0 support. Arnaud