[GIT PULL] omap changes for v2.6.39 merge window

[Nicolas Ferre]

Le 01/04/2011 17:30, Detlef Vollmann :
> On 04/01/11 16:59, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Friday 01 April 2011, Detlef Vollmann wrote:
>>> On 04/01/11 15:54, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>
>>>> 9. All interesting work is going into a handful of platforms, all of
>>>> which
>>>>      are ARMv7 based.
>>> Define interesting.
>>
>> The ones that are causing the churn that we're talking about.
>> Platforms that have been working forever and only need to get
>> the occasional bug fix are boring, i.e. not the problem.
> In the ARM tree I only know mach-at91.
> Atmel still introduces new SOCs based on ARM926EJ-S, and that makes
> perfect sense for lots of applications.
> And if they add support for a new SOC, they just copy an existing one,
> change some GPIOs, and submit it as new files (sorry, I'm over-
> simplifying here).
> And if you happen to wire your board a bit differently than they do,
> you have to patch theur generic file (in addidtion to add your own
> board file).
> And though I only know the mach-at91 closely, I'm pretty sure quite
> a number of other mach-* are not better.
> So this is actually why the ARM tree has such a bad reputation:
> lot's of code repetition, and still more of that.

Yes, certainly time has come for a change.

Note however that AT91 community is making great effort to:
- publish and maintain every single chip/board support since more than 5
years (and far before for first venerable at91rm9200) : if you recall
well, it was before most of code that appeared in arch/arm/mach-*
directories ;-)
- integrate ideas and patches from contributors for simplifying and
reducing board duplication
- try to conform to new infrastructures that are appearing on ARM Linux
for better convergence of code: gpiolib, leds, buttons, clocks (work in
progress)...

We know that work has to be done and we will for sure follow this effort
of consolidation. And remember: contributions welcomed ;-).

Best regards,
-- 
Nicolas Ferre