From: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>,
Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: Status of arch/arm in linux-next
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 12:27:42 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110419162742.GB24372@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201104191801.19348.arnd@arndb.de>
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 06:01:19PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > Thinking of it, is it OK to put chip CPUfreq drivers into
> > drivers/cpufreq/* instead of into the arch/arm/* platform
> > code as everyone does right now? We could probably
> > fix that and bring down the diffstat considerably.
>
> That's something to discuss with Dave Jones and other people
> interested in cpufre. Right now, all cpufreq drivers, including
> those for other architectures are in arch/.
>
> I think it would be good to have the out of the individual
> platforms, in particular in order to get better reviews of
> new cpufreq drivers by people that are interested in them.
The platform drivers are by their nature architecture specific,
so arch/ seems apropos. drivers/platform/arm/ maybe ?
Though, having arm do something different to every other arch seems
a bit awkward too. Everyone else has their cpufreq platform driver
somewhere under arch/whatever/../cpufreq/.. so changing that
violates the principle of least surprise.
I'm also not convinced that moving them would increase review of changes.
What problem is this solving again ?
Dave
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-04-19 16:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20110414094447.GA1611@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
[not found] ` <201104191655.13133.arnd@arndb.de>
[not found] ` <BANLkTi=kGxL9N-RNqxmeqs4zeYo0zzfmhQ@mail.gmail.com>
2011-04-19 16:01 ` Status of arch/arm in linux-next Arnd Bergmann
2011-04-19 16:05 ` Mark Brown
2011-04-21 20:14 ` Dave Jones
2011-04-21 21:02 ` Nicolas Pitre
2011-04-22 7:17 ` Tony Lindgren
2011-04-26 14:05 ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-04-26 17:04 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-04-26 18:15 ` Dave Jones
2011-04-29 20:15 ` Dave Jones
2011-04-30 0:05 ` Nicolas Pitre
2011-08-13 15:46 ` [BUG?] Moving drivers to drivers/cpufreq/ causes all to be loaded Jonathan Nieder
2011-08-13 19:02 ` Jonathan Nieder
2011-08-13 21:11 ` Dave Jones
2011-08-14 0:18 ` Mattia Dongili
2011-08-14 17:01 ` Jonathan Nieder
2011-08-14 17:17 ` Kay Sievers
2011-05-01 23:02 ` Status of arch/arm in linux-next Jamie Lokier
2011-04-19 16:27 ` Dave Jones [this message]
2011-04-19 17:12 ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-04-20 6:36 ` Linus Walleij
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=20110419162742.GB24372@redhat.com \
--to=davej@redhat.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
--cc=cpufreq@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=rjw@sisk.pl \
--cc=tony@atomide.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox