From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:07:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from elvis.franken.de ([193.175.24.41]:35000 "EHLO elvis.franken.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by eddie.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S1491184Ab1JTTHJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:07:09 +0200 Received: from uucp (helo=solo.franken.de) by elvis.franken.de with local-bsmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 1RGxxM-0006gz-00; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:07:08 +0200 Received: by solo.franken.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 0EBD51DA27; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:07:02 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:07:02 +0200 From: Thomas Bogendoerfer To: Ralf Baechle Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven , linux-mips@linux-mips.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] GIO bus support for SGI IP22/28 Message-ID: <20111020190701.GA30021@alpha.franken.de> References: <20111020150859.6072A1DA26@solo.franken.de> <20111020161908.GA13220@linux-mips.org> <20111020174922.GC885@linux-mips.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20111020174922.GC885@linux-mips.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-archive-position: 31256 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: tsbogend@alpha.franken.de Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips Return-Path: X-Keywords: X-UID: 15225 On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 06:49:22PM +0100, Ralf Baechle wrote: > There may have been obscure prototypes at SGI but I doubt any non-MIPS > GIO systems ever reached production status. wikipedia only mentions MIPS based stuff from SGI with GIO. > > If yes, you want to move it to drivers/gio/. > > Good point - it probably should go there anyway. does a single file really need it's own directoy ? GIO is pretty simple and most of the magic lies inside the board specific parts. My idea is to factor out the common code as soon as IP12/IP20 support comes up (which is probably never). Thomas. -- Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a good idea. [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]