On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 03:21:03PM +0400, Alexander Potashev wrote:

Hi Russell,

On 3 ?????? 2012 11:03:37 Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:

quoted

I notice that you sent me a very similar email on 24th December, which I
haven't responded to yet: given that it's the Christmas period, and
people take holidays, I think you're being a little hasty over your
resending.

The reason why I have re-sent the message to the mailing list was that I 
feeled like this discussion should be public, not just that I was bored 
waiting for the response.

Anyway, sorry for the noise.

quoted

In any case, yes, I can change it.  However, as has already been
pointed out, we're moving over to using device tree as the primary form
of platform differentiation.  With device tree, machine type numbers
are completely meaningless (and aren't actually used by the kernel.)

Thanks in advance for fixing the entry!

quoted

While I will fix the entry, I suspect that Arnd will now refuse to
merge any new SoC support for mainline which is not using the device
tree.

Linux kernel development in our company is still based on the 2.6.33 version 
of the kernel. Most of our code is not going to be sent upstream. We will 
probably think about FDT when upgrading to a newer version of the kernel.

I think it may help your case to point out that this is a uclinux platform,
being Cortex M4 based, rather than a mmu-ful platform.  While much of the
DT progress has been focused on mmu-ful platforms, much of this should just
work for DT with uclinux.

However, I suspect there may be issues such as how to provide the kernel
with a DT blob which would need to be addressed which would make this
non-trivial.

There's also the issue whether DT on uclinux makes sense as these
platforms are normally highly focussed and highly embedded (and it
really doesn't make that much sense to have a single kernel image
running on all.)