Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de> writes: > On Friday 17 December 2010, David Brown wrote:
>> My question, then is, should we hold off on getting 8960 support into >> the kernel until enough things are improved to get rid of the 8960 >> ifdefs? We can certainly do it that way, but it will keep the code >> out of the kernel longer. > > My personal recommendation would be to fix all the places that you > can do without significant reworks of the existing code, and > just add TODO comments in the other places, so we can find them > easily. There is no reason to hold up merging the code too long for > this, but I wouldn't add code now that I know needs to be changed > soon to something that can already be done easily. Sounds like a good plan. I've already started going through the IO mapping defines to make them not-ifdef based. It's not that significant of a change. Of course, everyone is on break here who will be able to test things, so we'll have this stuff early January. Thanks, David -- Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
