-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Kevin Hilman wrote: > Sergei Shtylyov <[email protected]> writes: > >>> Absolutely. >>> >> Here's an example of enforcing your private opinion... > > Yes, this is my private opinion, but I am not enforcing anything. I > am attempting to share the technical arguments behind my private > opinion so folks know where I'm coming from. > >>> As the person who has to maintain a single code base that will run on >>> all these platforms, I have a *very* strong desire to have a single >>> binary run across multiple SoCs. >> May be sholld also ask tbe opinion of TI and the real users? > > I am very eager to hear more opinions. That's what this list is all > about. >
We have some DaVinci based boards here, using single kernel for all is quite time-and-effort saver for us. It would be really nice to be able to boot the same kernel(s) in later designs as well, given that the arch is similar. Also isn't a single kernel for multiple archs is the better for auto-builders? I also quickly looked into arm/arch/mach-* directories and I see that some archs choose one mach-* folder, some many. However, it is seen that former group is well maintained than the latter. So for the sake of future code quality I hope you don't choose to differentiate code of SOCs under discussion. Best regards, Caglar -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkl3guwACgkQ/nL+S5dojejJlgCgm6r1XubIofZP9kLO98W8HaXk E84An3qa9NRXRfpzrdLKOKqTUcDTDjoK =nLy7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Davinci-linux-open-source mailing list [email protected] http://linux.davincidsp.com/mailman/listinfo/davinci-linux-open-source
