From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 09:42:56 +0100 Subject: [PATCHv2 1/7] arm: perf: factor arm_pmu core out to drivers In-Reply-To: <20150616214432.GV7557@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1434041060-16378-1-git-send-email-mark.rutland@arm.com> <1434041060-16378-2-git-send-email-mark.rutland@arm.com> <20150616161728.GI30522@arm.com> <20150616214432.GV7557@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <20150617084255.GA6303@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 10:44:32PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 05:17:28PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > I wonder whether that's such a good name for the subsystem. We already > > have a bunch of perf_* headers directly under include/linux/ for the perf > > core interfaces, so maybe drivers/pmu/ would be better? > > I think drivers/perf/ is better than drivers/pmu/. PMU can mean many > things - performance monitor unit, power management unit, ... > > There comes a point where the use of TLAs becomes excessive, confusing > and annoying, and I think this is it. Okey doke, if the perf core guys don't mind the slightly odd namespace split of for the core stuff and for the PMU drivers, then we can stick with Mark's proposal. Will