From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: Status of arch/arm in linux-next Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 16:05:26 +0200 Message-ID: <201104261605.26791.arnd@arndb.de> References: <20110414094447.GA1611@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20110421201455.GA18083@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: cpufreq-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Nicolas Pitre Cc: Dave Jones , Mark Brown , Russell King - ARM Linux , Tony Lindgren , Linus Walleij , cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org On Thursday 21 April 2011, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > if there's commonality between some of the ARM arch drivers, why can't > > there be a arch/arm/cpufreq/ dir for the shared code, and do everything there ? > > Because usually there isn't. "ARM" is just a CPU architecture, not a > system architecture. Everything around the core is different from one > vendor to the next. And when commonality exists it is much easier to > deal with if it is close together. Exactly. To make matters worse, we are starting to see a number of vendors that use multiple CPU architectures with the same I/O devices (e.g. Renesas, Freescale, Xilinx, TI, ...). Not sure if any of these use the same cpufreq register on more than one architecture, but it's quite likely to happen at some point. Arnd From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 16:05:26 +0200 Subject: Status of arch/arm in linux-next In-Reply-To: References: <20110414094447.GA1611@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20110421201455.GA18083@redhat.com> Message-ID: <201104261605.26791.arnd@arndb.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thursday 21 April 2011, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > if there's commonality between some of the ARM arch drivers, why can't > > there be a arch/arm/cpufreq/ dir for the shared code, and do everything there ? > > Because usually there isn't. "ARM" is just a CPU architecture, not a > system architecture. Everything around the core is different from one > vendor to the next. And when commonality exists it is much easier to > deal with if it is close together. Exactly. To make matters worse, we are starting to see a number of vendors that use multiple CPU architectures with the same I/O devices (e.g. Renesas, Freescale, Xilinx, TI, ...). Not sure if any of these use the same cpufreq register on more than one architecture, but it's quite likely to happen at some point. Arnd