Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> writes:

quoted text
> On Friday 17 December 2010, David Brown wrote:

quoted text
>> 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.
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/