From: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>,
Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: Status of arch/arm in linux-next
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 12:27:42 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110419162742.GB24372@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201104191801.19348.arnd@arndb.de>
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 06:01:19PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > Thinking of it, is it OK to put chip CPUfreq drivers into
> > drivers/cpufreq/* instead of into the arch/arm/* platform
> > code as everyone does right now? We could probably
> > fix that and bring down the diffstat considerably.
>
> That's something to discuss with Dave Jones and other people
> interested in cpufre. Right now, all cpufreq drivers, including
> those for other architectures are in arch/.
>
> I think it would be good to have the out of the individual
> platforms, in particular in order to get better reviews of
> new cpufreq drivers by people that are interested in them.
The platform drivers are by their nature architecture specific,
so arch/ seems apropos. drivers/platform/arm/ maybe ?
Though, having arm do something different to every other arch seems
a bit awkward too. Everyone else has their cpufreq platform driver
somewhere under arch/whatever/../cpufreq/.. so changing that
violates the principle of least surprise.
I'm also not convinced that moving them would increase review of changes.
What problem is this solving again ?
Dave
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: davej@redhat.com (Dave Jones)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Status of arch/arm in linux-next
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 12:27:42 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110419162742.GB24372@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201104191801.19348.arnd@arndb.de>
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 06:01:19PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > Thinking of it, is it OK to put chip CPUfreq drivers into
> > drivers/cpufreq/* instead of into the arch/arm/* platform
> > code as everyone does right now? We could probably
> > fix that and bring down the diffstat considerably.
>
> That's something to discuss with Dave Jones and other people
> interested in cpufre. Right now, all cpufreq drivers, including
> those for other architectures are in arch/.
>
> I think it would be good to have the out of the individual
> platforms, in particular in order to get better reviews of
> new cpufreq drivers by people that are interested in them.
The platform drivers are by their nature architecture specific,
so arch/ seems apropos. drivers/platform/arm/ maybe ?
Though, having arm do something different to every other arch seems
a bit awkward too. Everyone else has their cpufreq platform driver
somewhere under arch/whatever/../cpufreq/.. so changing that
violates the principle of least surprise.
I'm also not convinced that moving them would increase review of changes.
What problem is this solving again ?
Dave
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-04-19 16:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 85+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-04-14 9:44 Status of arch/arm in linux-next Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-04-14 11:08 ` Tony Lindgren
2011-04-14 12:02 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-04-14 12:31 ` Tony Lindgren
2011-04-14 14:20 ` Mark Brown
2011-04-14 14:26 ` Tony Lindgren
2011-04-14 14:31 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-04-14 18:32 ` Mark Brown
2011-04-15 15:12 ` Grant Likely
2011-04-15 15:56 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-04-15 16:10 ` Grant Likely
2011-04-16 8:28 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-04-16 16:57 ` Mark Brown
2011-04-18 8:10 ` Tony Lindgren
2011-04-18 13:57 ` Mark Brown
2011-04-18 14:41 ` Tony Lindgren
2011-04-18 14:41 ` Tony Lindgren
2011-04-18 15:58 ` Mark Brown
2011-04-18 15:58 ` Mark Brown
2011-04-18 17:18 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-04-18 20:23 ` Mark Brown
2011-04-18 21:40 ` Thomas Gleixner
2011-04-18 23:55 ` Mark Brown
2011-04-14 14:07 ` Mark Brown
2011-04-15 2:59 ` Nico Erfurth
2011-04-15 8:21 ` Nicolas Ferre
2011-04-15 13:13 ` Nico Erfurth
2011-04-15 1:16 ` Linus Walleij
2011-04-15 6:26 ` Tony Lindgren
2011-04-19 14:16 ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-04-19 14:50 ` Mark Brown
2011-04-19 14:55 ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-04-19 15:04 ` Mark Brown
2011-04-19 15:14 ` Linus Walleij
2011-04-19 16:01 ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-04-19 16:01 ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-04-19 16:05 ` Mark Brown
2011-04-19 16:05 ` Mark Brown
2011-04-21 20:14 ` Dave Jones
2011-04-21 20:14 ` Dave Jones
2011-04-21 21:02 ` Nicolas Pitre
2011-04-21 21:02 ` Nicolas Pitre
2011-04-22 7:17 ` Tony Lindgren
2011-04-22 7:17 ` Tony Lindgren
2011-04-26 14:05 ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-04-26 14:05 ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-04-26 17:04 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-04-26 17:04 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-04-26 18:15 ` Dave Jones
2011-04-26 18:15 ` Dave Jones
2011-04-29 20:15 ` Dave Jones
2011-04-29 20:15 ` Dave Jones
2011-04-30 0:05 ` Nicolas Pitre
2011-04-30 0:05 ` Nicolas Pitre
2011-08-13 15:46 ` [BUG?] Moving drivers to drivers/cpufreq/ causes all to be loaded Jonathan Nieder
2011-08-13 19:02 ` Jonathan Nieder
2011-08-13 21:11 ` Dave Jones
2011-08-14 0:18 ` Mattia Dongili
2011-08-14 0:18 ` Mattia Dongili
2011-08-14 17:01 ` Jonathan Nieder
2011-08-14 17:17 ` Kay Sievers
2011-08-14 17:17 ` Kay Sievers
2011-05-01 23:02 ` Status of arch/arm in linux-next Jamie Lokier
2011-05-01 23:02 ` Jamie Lokier
2011-04-19 16:27 ` Dave Jones [this message]
2011-04-19 16:27 ` Dave Jones
2011-04-19 17:12 ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-04-19 17:12 ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-04-20 6:36 ` Linus Walleij
2011-04-20 6:36 ` Linus Walleij
2011-04-21 7:32 ` Linus Walleij
2011-04-21 8:25 ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-04-22 7:56 ` Linus Walleij
2011-04-22 11:46 ` Linus Walleij
2011-05-02 13:49 ` Samuel Ortiz
2011-05-02 19:21 ` Linus Walleij
2011-04-20 7:33 ` Tony Lindgren
2011-04-20 7:43 ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-04-15 14:30 ` Martin Guy
2011-04-15 15:50 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-04-18 15:17 ` Alexey Zaytsev
2011-04-18 16:23 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-04-18 21:54 ` Alexey Zaytsev
2011-04-19 15:02 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-04-19 15:20 ` Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20110419162742.GB24372@redhat.com \
--to=davej@redhat.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
--cc=cpufreq@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=rjw@sisk.pl \
--cc=tony@atomide.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.