From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tony Lindgren Subject: Re: Status of arch/arm in linux-next Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 00:17:21 -0700 Message-ID: <20110422071721.GC841@atomide.com> References: <20110414094447.GA1611@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <201104191655.13133.arnd@arndb.de> <201104191801.19348.arnd@arndb.de> <20110419160545.GJ1765@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <20110421201455.GA18083@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-arm-kernel-bounces@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Nicolas Pitre Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux , Arnd Bergmann , Linus Walleij , Mark Brown , cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Dave Jones , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org * Nicolas Pitre [110421 13:59]: > On Thu, 21 Apr 2011, Dave Jones wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 05:05:46PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > > This is why I don't believe that moving this code from arch/ to drivers/ > > will change anything. > > That at least would have the property of gathering drivers together > according to their _purpose_, irrespective of their implementation > details. That's the case for all the other class of drivers already. > Why would cpufreq drivers be different? And drivers do have well defined standards, so that automatically prevents people sneaking in spaghetti calls to platform specific code ;) Tony From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tony@atomide.com (Tony Lindgren) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 00:17:21 -0700 Subject: Status of arch/arm in linux-next In-Reply-To: References: <20110414094447.GA1611@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <201104191655.13133.arnd@arndb.de> <201104191801.19348.arnd@arndb.de> <20110419160545.GJ1765@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <20110421201455.GA18083@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20110422071721.GC841@atomide.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org * Nicolas Pitre [110421 13:59]: > On Thu, 21 Apr 2011, Dave Jones wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 05:05:46PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > > This is why I don't believe that moving this code from arch/ to drivers/ > > will change anything. > > That at least would have the property of gathering drivers together > according to their _purpose_, irrespective of their implementation > details. That's the case for all the other class of drivers already. > Why would cpufreq drivers be different? And drivers do have well defined standards, so that automatically prevents people sneaking in spaghetti calls to platform specific code ;) Tony