From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v4 2/4] mfd: lubbock_cplds: add lubbock IO board
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2015 14:24:02 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201503281424.02583.arnd@arndb.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87fv8pwmm0.fsf@free.fr>
On Saturday 28 March 2015, Robert Jarzmik wrote:
> It's not as much a problem as a generic question : does a driver belong to
> arch/* ?
>
> Personaly it would have been far simpler for me to have it through the pxa tree,
> but I want to be sure it's the right place. Others will follow, pxa mainstone is
> such a candidate.
>
> I was thinking so far that arch/arm/mach-* was for machine description,
> ie. wirings, interconnections, initial setup etc ... The "driver" part, ie. code
> really driving dynamics in IPs was as per my understanding in drivers/...
>
> Now I can create arch/arm/mach-pxa/lubbock_cplds.c, that won't make any
> difference to me, provided that it's the right thing to do.
If we had a lot of these, we would probably put them somewhere under drivers.
and find a maintainer for them. Given that this is an exceptional case for
an older machine, my feeling is that leaving the code in mach-pxa is the least
effort for now.
Arnd
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd-r2nGTMty4D4@public.gmane.org>
To: linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org
Cc: Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik-GANU6spQydw@public.gmane.org>,
Nicolas Pitre
<nicolas.pitre-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>,
Russell King - ARM Linux
<linux-lFZ/pmaqli7XmaaqVzeoHQ@public.gmane.org>,
Samuel Ortiz <sameo-VuQAYsv1563Yd54FQh9/CA@public.gmane.org>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>,
Ian Campbell
<ijc+devicetree-KcIKpvwj1kUDXYZnReoRVg@public.gmane.org>,
Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov
<dbaryshkov-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh-hQyY1W1yCW8ekmWlsbkhG0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org>,
linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
Haojian Zhuang
<haojian.zhuang-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
Rob Herring <robh+dt-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>,
Kumar Gala <galak-sgV2jX0FEOL9JmXXK+q4OQ@public.gmane.org>,
Grant Likely
<grant.likely-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>,
Daniel Mack <daniel-cYrQPVfZoowdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] mfd: lubbock_cplds: add lubbock IO board
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2015 14:24:02 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201503281424.02583.arnd@arndb.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87fv8pwmm0.fsf-GANU6spQydw@public.gmane.org>
On Saturday 28 March 2015, Robert Jarzmik wrote:
> It's not as much a problem as a generic question : does a driver belong to
> arch/* ?
>
> Personaly it would have been far simpler for me to have it through the pxa tree,
> but I want to be sure it's the right place. Others will follow, pxa mainstone is
> such a candidate.
>
> I was thinking so far that arch/arm/mach-* was for machine description,
> ie. wirings, interconnections, initial setup etc ... The "driver" part, ie. code
> really driving dynamics in IPs was as per my understanding in drivers/...
>
> Now I can create arch/arm/mach-pxa/lubbock_cplds.c, that won't make any
> difference to me, provided that it's the right thing to do.
If we had a lot of these, we would probably put them somewhere under drivers.
and find a maintainer for them. Given that this is an exceptional case for
an older machine, my feeling is that leaving the code in mach-pxa is the least
effort for now.
Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Cc: Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@free.fr>,
Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
"Russell King - ARM Linux" <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
Samuel Ortiz <sameo@linux.intel.com>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@arm.com>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk>,
"Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov" <dbaryshkov@gmail.com>,
"Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@gmail.com>,
devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
Kumar Gala <galak@codeaurora.org>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>, Daniel Mack <daniel@zonque.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] mfd: lubbock_cplds: add lubbock IO board
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2015 14:24:02 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201503281424.02583.arnd@arndb.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87fv8pwmm0.fsf@free.fr>
On Saturday 28 March 2015, Robert Jarzmik wrote:
> It's not as much a problem as a generic question : does a driver belong to
> arch/* ?
>
> Personaly it would have been far simpler for me to have it through the pxa tree,
> but I want to be sure it's the right place. Others will follow, pxa mainstone is
> such a candidate.
>
> I was thinking so far that arch/arm/mach-* was for machine description,
> ie. wirings, interconnections, initial setup etc ... The "driver" part, ie. code
> really driving dynamics in IPs was as per my understanding in drivers/...
>
> Now I can create arch/arm/mach-pxa/lubbock_cplds.c, that won't make any
> difference to me, provided that it's the right thing to do.
If we had a lot of these, we would probably put them somewhere under drivers.
and find a maintainer for them. Given that this is an exceptional case for
an older machine, my feeling is that leaving the code in mach-pxa is the least
effort for now.
Arnd
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-03-28 13:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 51+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-01-24 15:05 [PATCH v4 1/4] dt-bindings: mfd: add lubbock-cplds binding Robert Jarzmik
2015-01-24 15:05 ` Robert Jarzmik
2015-01-24 15:05 ` [PATCH v4 2/4] mfd: lubbock_cplds: add lubbock IO board Robert Jarzmik
2015-01-24 15:05 ` Robert Jarzmik
2015-01-24 15:05 ` Robert Jarzmik
2015-02-16 13:05 ` Lee Jones
2015-02-16 13:05 ` Lee Jones
2015-02-16 13:05 ` Lee Jones
2015-02-16 13:27 ` robert.jarzmik at free.fr
2015-02-16 13:27 ` robert.jarzmik
2015-02-16 16:27 ` Lee Jones
2015-02-16 16:27 ` Lee Jones
2015-02-16 22:14 ` Robert Jarzmik
2015-02-16 22:14 ` Robert Jarzmik
2015-02-17 7:43 ` Lee Jones
2015-02-17 7:43 ` Lee Jones
2015-02-17 17:38 ` Nicolas Pitre
2015-02-17 17:38 ` Nicolas Pitre
2015-02-18 8:07 ` Lee Jones
2015-02-18 8:07 ` Lee Jones
2015-02-20 16:02 ` Robert Jarzmik
2015-02-20 16:02 ` Robert Jarzmik
2015-02-28 9:57 ` Robert Jarzmik
2015-02-28 9:57 ` Robert Jarzmik
2015-02-28 15:11 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2015-02-28 15:11 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2015-02-28 15:29 ` Robert Jarzmik
2015-02-28 15:29 ` Robert Jarzmik
2015-03-25 14:07 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2015-03-25 14:07 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2015-03-26 21:38 ` Robert Jarzmik
2015-03-26 21:38 ` Robert Jarzmik
2015-03-26 21:38 ` Robert Jarzmik
2015-03-26 23:47 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2015-03-26 23:47 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2015-03-28 2:35 ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-03-28 2:35 ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-03-28 8:29 ` Robert Jarzmik
2015-03-28 8:29 ` Robert Jarzmik
2015-03-28 13:24 ` Arnd Bergmann [this message]
2015-03-28 13:24 ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-03-28 13:24 ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-01-24 15:05 ` [PATCH v4 3/4] ARM: pxa: lubbock: use new lubbock_cplds driver Robert Jarzmik
2015-01-24 15:05 ` Robert Jarzmik
2015-01-24 15:05 ` Robert Jarzmik
2015-01-24 15:05 ` [PATCH v4 4/4] MAINTAINERS: add entry for lubbock-cplds Robert Jarzmik
2015-01-24 15:05 ` Robert Jarzmik
2015-01-24 15:05 ` Robert Jarzmik
2015-02-10 18:41 ` [PATCH v4 1/4] dt-bindings: mfd: add lubbock-cplds binding Robert Jarzmik
2015-02-10 18:41 ` Robert Jarzmik
2015-02-10 18:41 ` Robert Jarzmik
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=201503281424.02583.arnd@arndb.de \
--to=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.