From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: daniel.lezcano@linaro.org (Daniel Lezcano) Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 22:47:22 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] ux500 : decouple/recouple gic from the PRCMU In-Reply-To: References: <1328270849-22324-1-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> <4F2F9B2C.8030009@stericsson.com> <4F2FDF54.8080701@linaro.org> Message-ID: <4F304A6A.9070703@linaro.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 02/06/2012 06:37 PM, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Daniel Lezcano > wrote: >> On 02/06/2012 10:19 AM, Rickard Andersson wrote: > >>> - there is no reason to place these functions inside the db8500-prcmu.c >>> file. There is so much stuff in the PRCMU register base so we can not >>> have everything in one file. Why not have it as it is? >> >> Why spread the prcmu code when it is related to the prcmu ? >> >> Linus ? What do you think ? > > I have no strong opinions on this. When I discussed it with Mattias > who wrote much of the driver we concluded that the PRCMU drivers needs > a lot of shaping up. Mainly it may need to be split into two parts: one > which is a "pure" MFD device (register access part) one MFD firmware > interaction part, and then a platform-specific (U8500) part. > > This would help getting code in more logical places. > > For now I would suggest not moving stuff around, I thin Mattias is onto > cleaning up the structure as per above and we could be messing it up > for him, which is not good. Ok, I will resend the patch with the name changed to decouple/recouple. Is the patch acceptable as it is ? Thanks -- Daniel -- Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog