From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Jones Subject: Re: Status of arch/arm in linux-next Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 12:27:42 -0400 Message-ID: <20110419162742.GB24372@redhat.com> References: <20110414094447.GA1611@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <201104191655.13133.arnd@arndb.de> <201104191801.19348.arnd@arndb.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201104191801.19348.arnd@arndb.de> Sender: cpufreq-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Linus Walleij , cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Mark Brown , Tony Lindgren , Russell King - ARM Linux , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org 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 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: davej@redhat.com (Dave Jones) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 12:27:42 -0400 Subject: Status of arch/arm in linux-next In-Reply-To: <201104191801.19348.arnd@arndb.de> References: <20110414094447.GA1611@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <201104191655.13133.arnd@arndb.de> <201104191801.19348.arnd@arndb.de> Message-ID: <20110419162742.GB24372@redhat.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org 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