From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] [v2] drivers/misc: introduce Freescale hypervisor management driver Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 17:42:01 +0200 Message-ID: <201106061742.01974.arnd@arndb.de> References: <1306953337-15698-1-git-send-email-timur@freescale.com> <201106031724.44957.arnd@arndb.de> <4DE8FD85.7000703@freescale.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4DE8FD85.7000703@freescale.com> Sender: linux-console-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Timur Tabi Cc: kumar.gala@freescale.com, benh@kernel.crashing.org, greg@kroah.com, akpm@kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-console@vger.kernel.org On Friday 03 June 2011, Timur Tabi wrote: > Arnd Bergmann wrote: > >> > I don't think it's correct to think of a hypervisor as firmware, so I don't > >> > think drivers/firmware is better. > >> > > >> > I'm not sure that creating virt/fsl and putting the driver in there is a good > >> > idea, because it will be the only driver in that directory. Unlike KVM, this > >> > driver is just a collection of front-ends to our hypervisor API. The actual > >> > hypervisor is completely separate. That's why I put it in drivers/misc, because > >> > it's just a single driver with a miscellaneous collection of interfaces. > > > Ok, fair enough. If nobody has a strong preference any other way, just make it > > drivers/firmware then. > > Did you mean to say drivers/misc? Sorry, I misread your first sentence above. I thought you said that you prefer drivers/firmware over virt/fsl. drivers/misc is definitely the wrong place for this, please choose a better one. Maybe drivers/virt/ ? Arnd From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.187]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85DA7B6FAB for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2011 01:42:18 +1000 (EST) From: Arnd Bergmann To: Timur Tabi Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] [v2] drivers/misc: introduce Freescale hypervisor management driver Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 17:42:01 +0200 References: <1306953337-15698-1-git-send-email-timur@freescale.com> <201106031724.44957.arnd@arndb.de> <4DE8FD85.7000703@freescale.com> In-Reply-To: <4DE8FD85.7000703@freescale.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Message-Id: <201106061742.01974.arnd@arndb.de> Cc: kumar.gala@freescale.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@kernel.org, linux-console@vger.kernel.org, greg@kroah.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Friday 03 June 2011, Timur Tabi wrote: > Arnd Bergmann wrote: > >> > I don't think it's correct to think of a hypervisor as firmware, so I don't > >> > think drivers/firmware is better. > >> > > >> > I'm not sure that creating virt/fsl and putting the driver in there is a good > >> > idea, because it will be the only driver in that directory. Unlike KVM, this > >> > driver is just a collection of front-ends to our hypervisor API. The actual > >> > hypervisor is completely separate. That's why I put it in drivers/misc, because > >> > it's just a single driver with a miscellaneous collection of interfaces. > > > Ok, fair enough. If nobody has a strong preference any other way, just make it > > drivers/firmware then. > > Did you mean to say drivers/misc? Sorry, I misread your first sentence above. I thought you said that you prefer drivers/firmware over virt/fsl. drivers/misc is definitely the wrong place for this, please choose a better one. Maybe drivers/virt/ ? Arnd