From: mingo@elte.hu (Ingo Molnar) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 10:06:34 +0200 Subject: [GIT PULL] omap changes for v2.6.39 merge window In-Reply-To: References: <20110318101512.GA15375@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <201103301906.42429.arnd@arndb.de> Message-ID: <20110331080634.GA18022@elte.hu> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org * Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Wed, 30 Mar 2011, david at lang.hm wrote: > > > back in the early days of the PCs, different systems from different vendors > > had different bus types, peripherals at different addresses, etc. that didn't > > make all of those vendors systems different architectures, instead those > > things were varients of the x86 architecture. > > Most of them didn't survive. That really helps. That's not the point, 99% of the current ARM boards will not 'survive' either, 10-20 years down the road. I think you missed David's main point: life inevitably went on and few of the old x86 hardware 'survived' physically, but past hardware versions have not littered the kernel source with half a million lines of source code in the process ... Having strong, effective platform abstractions inside the kernel really helps even if the hardware space itself is inevitably fragmented: both powerpc and x86 has shown that. Until you realize and appreciate that you really have not understood the problem i think. Thanks, Ingo