From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [PATCH v6][RESEND] platform: x86: New BayTrail IOSF-SB MBI driver Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 16:00:32 -0800 Message-ID: <52CC9520.4060208@zytor.com> References: <1388427149-25456-1-git-send-email-david.e.box@linux.intel.com> <4364833.i22acYTaeM@vostro.rjw.lan> <20140107214300.GA30423@linux.intel.com> <3119193.jBSlNlK309@vostro.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:33360 "EHLO mail.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754374AbaAHABK (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Jan 2014 19:01:10 -0500 In-Reply-To: <3119193.jBSlNlK309@vostro.rjw.lan> Sender: platform-driver-x86-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "David E. Box" Cc: Randy Dunlap , mjg59@srcf.ucam.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org On 01/07/2014 04:11 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> >> Ok, I spoke with other developers and I apparently misunderstood the context >> here. Distro's enable these features and this is too detailed for them to know >> what to do with it. How about simply "Required to enable platform specific power >> managemnet features on Baytrail"? >> >> KISS is easier said than done. > > Well, I personally think that this code should go into arch/x86/ as library code > needed to access IOSF Sideband on some platforms. I probably would make modules > depending on it select it, so for example if the RAPL driver is going to be > built, your driver should be build either and rather unconditionally in that > case. > > So the rule should be "if something *may* need it, build it" in my opinion. > I thought we were targeting this for drivers/x86? However, perhaps with power management tied in that doesn't make too much sense. -hpa