From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 1/2][RFC] at91 : move pm.h header to include/mach
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 19:06:54 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120106190654.GA13857@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4F057188.8080101@linaro.org>
On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 10:46:48AM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 01/04/2012 11:10 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 11:31:05AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> >> This header should probably be named something more specific like
> >> at91_pm.h or at91_sdram.h. This will be needed to avoid name collisions
> >> with mach headers on a single kernel binary.
> >
> > I think actually the idea that mach/*.h headers can be included by stuff
> > outside of arch/arm is something that we should deprecate, because it's
> > not going to be sane to make them all unique in this way.
> >
> > Not only that but it prevents the .c files being built on other
> > architectures, and provides another reason why the .c file is tied to
> > a pariticular SoC - even if the same IP is used in a different SoC, it
> > can be used as a reason why not to reuse the .c file.
> >
> > Let's not give people excuses not to share code!
>
> As the pm.h file should be included from drivers/cpuidle/at91_idle.c,
> does it make sense to move
> arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.h to arch/arm/include/asm/at91_pm.h ?
Not really. If code is being moved out of arch/arm, their dependent
headers should also be moved out of arch/arm as well. It makes no
sense to move the code out of arch/arm into drivers if it still
requires headers only found in arch/arm to build.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-01-06 19:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-01-04 16:55 [PATCH 1/2][RFC] at91 : move pm.h header to include/mach Daniel Lezcano
2012-01-04 16:55 ` [PATCH 2/2][RFC] at91 : move cpuidle driver to drivers/cpuidle directory Daniel Lezcano
2012-01-04 17:31 ` [PATCH 1/2][RFC] at91 : move pm.h header to include/mach Rob Herring
2012-01-04 22:10 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-01-05 9:46 ` Daniel Lezcano
2012-01-06 19:06 ` Russell King - ARM Linux [this message]
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=20120106190654.GA13857@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk \
--to=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).