From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linus.walleij@linaro.org (Linus Walleij) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 13:46:28 +0200 Subject: Status of arch/arm in linux-next In-Reply-To: References: <20110414094447.GA1611@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <201104211025.34420.arnd@arndb.de> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org 2011/4/22 Linus Walleij : > The big deviating thing is the clock tree, which also use calls to > the PRCMU. I would argue that the problem is rather that clocks > are not modeled as devices rather than that the PRCMU would > be modeled as an MFD device. Which sort of begets the question of whether Russell is OK with pushing clock tree implementations to drivers/clk/*... I'll be perfectly happy doing that too, so if I: - Put the PRCMU driver in drivers/mfd/prcmu-db8500.c - Put the cpufreq driver in drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-db8500.c - Put the clock tree in drivers/clk/clock-db8500.c My diffstat (which was 50% of the ARM +++ in the next tree) will most certainly instead go to NEGATIVE in arch/arm/* and be an appetizing pull target. Needless to say it'll require some ACK:ing. I have mixed feelings about this but it does depopulate the ARM tree. Yours, Linus Walleij