From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Len Brown Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/15] ACPICA: move common private headers under kernel/acpi/acpica/ Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 23:34:49 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: References: <526647e1bb69fd3248558fce365bb1fbfb226ccd.1230719795.git.len.brown@intel.com> <20090102191451.GB14249@elte.hu> <20090107221017.GD17917@elte.hu> <20090108160304.GA30619@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Return-path: Received: from vms173003pub.verizon.net ([206.46.173.3]:40064 "EHLO vms173003pub.verizon.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752346AbZAIEfJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jan 2009 23:35:09 -0500 In-reply-to: <20090108160304.GA30619@infradead.org> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Hellwig , Ingo Molnar Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , "H. Peter Anvin" , Thomas Gleixner > On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 11:10:17PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > i still tend to regard kernel/* as the core Linux kernel, as code that can > > be improved infinitely (only subject to the laws of physics), without > > having to worry about how the ACPI spec wants certain things done. I want to move the Linux-ACPI code and the ACPICA core out of drivers/ simply because they are not drivers, and never will be. The actual ACPI drivers, OTOH, would remain in drivers/acpi/. So looking around... arch/ doesn't make sense for something shared by x86 and ia64 firmware/ seems to be about software that doesn't run on the CPU. kernel/ is evidently sacred ground. So I suggest "platform/acpi/" or if we can't imagine any other cross architecture platform code code that isn't device drivers, then simply "acpi/" Would you find that less offensive? thanks, Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center