From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: olof@lixom.net (Olof Johansson) Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 11:37:54 -0700 Subject: How to facilitate the cpuidle drivers to go to the same direction (Was: Re: [PATCH 4/9] ARM: OMAP4: cpuidle: fix wrong driver initialization) In-Reply-To: <1364804988.32247.3.camel@pasglop> References: <1364553095-25110-4-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> <51556F1D.5030208@ti.com> <515570DF.5010608@linaro.org> <51558723.1050904@ti.com> <5155AEE7.106@ti.com> <5155B85F.6030808@linaro.org> <515923C7.8040408@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1364804988.32247.3.camel@pasglop> Message-ID: <20130402183754.GN25867@quad.lixom.net> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 10:29:48AM +0200, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Mon, 2013-04-01 at 11:35 +0530, Deepthi Dharwar wrote: > > But then, this means we get all the > > arch specific code out under drivers/cpuidle > > which can be very messy. > > Not really no. We already have that here or there in other drivers, > it's not necessarily messy and the stuff like that can generally be made > reasonably self contained. > > The main issue is that if I (powerpc) wants a fix in my > some_ppc_box_idle.c driver, especially if it needs to sync with other > arch changes, having to sync/ack with Rafael might complicate things a > bit (though not necessarily a lot). > > I would probably keep the liberty of sending to Linus directly urgent > bug/regression fixes to individual cpuidle drivers relating to our archs > without waiting every now and then if for example Rafael is on > vacation :-) Merging them all over sounds like a good idea to me as well. This isn't too different from how we handle other subsystems; as architecutre maintainer you just use your judgement on what needs an ack vs cc. Some smaller details about how the backend of the driver works on a platform is quite different from refactoring portions of the framework. -Olof