On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:47:07 +1000 David Gibson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 10:44:31AM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > > Josh Boyer wrote: > > > On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 10:32:43 -0500 > > > Kumar Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>Do we want to go and move stuff back out of arch/powerpc/kernel > > >>back into arch/ppc/kernel? or just include files? > > > > > > > > > What would be the point of doing that? I would think we want the > > > opposite, in that we want to reuse as much of arch/powerpc during > > > arch/ppc compiles as possible. Sort of shows how much is "left" > > > to port. > > > > The point would be to keep the two trees separate, so that one > > doesn't need to worry about breaking arch/ppc when making a change > > to arch/powerpc. > > Exactly so. Having to be careful about not breaking arch/ppc when > doing cleanups for arch/powerpc is a pain in the bum. How many times has that happened recently? If it's fairly infrequent, then just do the split when you're doing the arch/powerpc cleanup. I'm still not convinced that doing a wholesale split again is worth the effort. But then again, I'm not opposed either. Particularly if someone else is doing the work :). It simply doesn't make tons of sense to my feeble little brain. Seems like that time could be spent better elsewhere. josh _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
