From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: nicolas.ferre@atmel.com (Nicolas Ferre)
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 18:41:25 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] at91 : move pm.h header to arch/arm/include/asm
In-Reply-To: <20120109170909.GL2854@game.jcrosoft.org>
References: <1325864915-794-1-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
 <201201061730.33525.arnd.bergmann@linaro.org> <4F0ACD35.1000600@linaro.org>
 <20120109112920.GJ21765@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <4F0AF198.1030803@linaro.org>
 <20120109144443.GQ21765@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
 <20120109164855.GK2854@game.jcrosoft.org>
 <20120109170909.GL2854@game.jcrosoft.org>
Message-ID: <4F0B26C5.6030109@atmel.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 01/09/2012 06:09 PM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD :
> On 17:48 Mon 09 Jan     , Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
>> On 14:44 Mon 09 Jan     , Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 02:54:32PM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>> On 01/09/2012 12:29 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 12:19:17PM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>>>> Actually, the header moves from :
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 	arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.h
>>>>>> to:
>>>>>> 	arch/arm/include/asm/at91_pm.h.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This place and the renaming of the file complies with the comments of
>>>>>> Russell,
>>>>>
>>>>> No it doesn't.  There's absolutely no way in hell I want arch/arm/include/asm
>>>>> to be littered with hundreds of crappy platform specific header files.
>>>>
>>>> Ok. Actually there are 9 pm.h files but I agree with a domino effect we
>>>> can have more header files brought to this directory like "control.h",
>>>> "powerdomain.h", etc ...
>>>>
>>>> Does it make sense to merge all the pm.h file in a single pm.h which
>>>> will be located in arch/arm/include/asm ?
>>>
>>> No it doesn't.  If moving something out of arch/arm means that we have to
>>> buggerize the header files, then moving it out of arch/arm is the wrong
>>> thing to do.  What the need to bugger about with header files is telling
>>> you is that the code you're moving (in its existing form) is intimitely
>>> tied to the SoC.
>>>
>>> There's two solutions to that: either leave it where it is, or first
>>> sort out why it's intimitely tied, and what can be done to remove its
>>> dependence on the SoC.
>>>
>>> I've finally taken a deeper look at what's going on here... 
>>>
>>> arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.h is full of crap:
>> I work on it but work on other clean up first
> this code need to be clean with the pm_slowclock.S too to support multiple soc
> 
> and we need to drop the at91_sys_read/write stuff too
> 
> I work on this right now

Yes, but as patches are not already there so please Daniel, feel free to
contribute ;-)

Bye,
-- 
Nicolas Ferre