On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 10:04:53AM -0600, Kumar Gala wrote:
>
> On Dec 4, 2007, at 9:26 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 07:25:57 -0600
> > Jon Loeliger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> So, like, the other day David Woodhouse mumbled:
> >>>
> >>> I think this is a bad idea -- it's hardly a difficult for those
> >>> people
> >>> who _do_ need dts to obtain it separately.
> >>>
> >>> We shouldn't be merging _more_ stuff in.
> >>
> >> Thanks for chiming in here, David W. As far as I can tell
> >> so far, the only two people who have voiced an opinion on
> >> this issue are Dave G, submitting patches, and me disagreeing
> >> with the approach. :-)
> >>
> >> Anyone else?
> >
> > I don't see an overwhelmingly great reason to merge it. It might help
> > test people who do automated rebuilds, etc and aren't used to dealing
> > with powerpc and it's requirements. Outside of that, I see it as
> > dual-maintenance.
> >
> > But I'm not doing the maintenance, and it doesn't effect me too much.
> > I only ask that a decision is made and executed on soon so we can move
> > on.
>
> I'm also in disagreement of duplicating dtc in the kernel.
>
> However, if we are going to do this we should make the path expansion
> for labels work before we do it.
Since we're going to have to update the in-kernel copy reasonably
frequently anyway, I don't see that there's much point in waiting for
particular features to be implemented.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
