Re: [PATCH v6 1/3] clk: x86: Add Atom PMC platform clocks

[Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>]

On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 12:29:41AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 9:19 PM, Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 08:49:13PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 02:26:21AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 2:15 AM, Pierre-Louis Bossart
> 
> >> > There should really be some Documentation about how to choose an include
> >> > directory :-)
> >>
> >> So true!
> 
> (1)
> 
> > The options are:
> >
> > a) include/linux/x86
> > b) include/linux/platform_data/x86
> 
> Correct.
> 
> > In my opinion, a) looks like architecture and would be difficult to distinguish
> > from arch/x86/include. b) on the other hand clearly notes that it is for
> > platform specific information. If it was platform instead of platform_data, that
> > would be even better, but that could be a later change. But I think the
> > confusion over x86 arch in a) is worse than the more subtle (in my opinion)
> > distinction between "platform" and "platform_data".
> >
> > I would want x86 maintainer approval before adding a), while b) I'm happy to add
> > ourselves - and we already have agreement from tglx on that.
> >
> > To move forward, let's go with b).
> 
> Let me say I'm not fully satisfied, though for sake of moving forward
> I agree with these arguments.
> 
> > The new x86 directory clearly separates out
> > content which will make it trivial to move later if the need arises.
> 
> See (1). I would really appreciate if some agreement and documentation
> will be developed.
> In that case one of us would really have one serious argument to one
> of the sides.

Agreed. I always prefer to make decisions based on Documented precedent whenever
possible.

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center