Dear Tom Rini,
On 09/19/12 12:32, Marek Vasut wrote:
Dear Tom Rini,
On 09/19/12 04:32, Stefan Roese wrote:
Hi Marek,
On 09/19/2012 01:28 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
Again, NS16550 driver here. This code shouldn't be necessary. Also this board looks quite unmaintained as well. Perhaps its time to remove it from mainline? Not sure whom to ask, since no maintainer is listed.
Exactly :-(
Shall we not simply remove all boards that obviously miss maintainer?
I'm all for it. I'm currently working on a patch to remove support
for the IOP480 platforms completely (ppc40x derivate). Some other boards might be good candidates as well...
Since Marek has poked me about this in a few other contexts as well, let me state my position for the moment.
I did, yet I was much less polite ;-)
Whatever boards a custodian
I can't parse this :-(
Well, we have custodians for various areas and board maintainers. Since not all boards have a maintainer listed, the custodian for the area is the de facto maintainer.
Ok, now I understand.
is the de facto maintainer for and they don't believe makes sense to continue carrying forward in mainline, they can and should submit patches to remove. Conversely, if the custodian says "I'm fine carrying these platforms", that's what they can and should do.
And I have a few other things to say too, so I'll save that for a bit later once I'm done drafting and considering.
Drafting what exactly please?
A more elaborate set of statements on my feelings about "old" boards and what needs to happen, in light of the facts that the code is messy, will require updating for DM and likelyhood of a small but devoted community around some of them.
I see ... eagerly waiting.
Best regards, Marek Vasut