From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: wsa@the-dreams.de (Wolfram Sang) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 18:32:42 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] misc: (at24) move header to linux/platform_data/ In-Reply-To: <1414767040.1054326.1380226152008.JavaMail.root@mail> References: <169123028.921974.1377290733515.JavaMail.root@mail> <1414767040.1054326.1380226152008.JavaMail.root@mail> Message-ID: <20130927163242.GB3094@katana> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 04:09:12PM -0400, Vivien Didelot wrote: > Hi Wolfram, > > > Wolfram wrote: > > > > > > IMHO it makes sense. Why wouldn't we want all platform_data in > > > > include/linux/platform_data/? > > > > > > For the same reason we don't want all driver source files in one > > > directory? It's a mess. > > > > Well, that's different. Not all drivers expose platform data, but > > many subsystems have drivers with platform data. A common include > > directory for the *_platform_data structure definitions makes sense. > > Also IMO having such header file in include/linux/i2c/ for a driver > declared in drivers/misc/eeprom/ is not very consistent. > So this is the purpose of this include directory. What do you think? Well, yes, I will apply it if you could rebase it onto v3.12-rc2. I am unsure about the platform_data dir in general, though. For example, I'd prefer to have the i2c-* files in the i2c-dir, but this is another question. Thanks, Wolfram -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: