From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Pitre Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 0/1] drivers: mfd: Versatile Express SPC support Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 14:29:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: References: <1373990743-23106-1-git-send-email-lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com> <1374052705.3146.86.camel@hornet> <1374067786.3146.123.camel@hornet> <1374070811.3146.124.camel@hornet> <20130717170038.GP24642@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130717170038.GP24642@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Russell King - ARM Linux Cc: Pawel Moll , Jon Medhurst , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Samuel Ortiz , Sudeep KarkadaNagesha , "devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Amit Kucheria , Olof Johansson , Achin Gupta , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 11:57:55AM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > The sanest location at this point might simply be > > drivers/platform/vexpress_spc.c or drivers/platform/vexpress/spc.c > > depending on whether or not more such driver glue is expected in the > > vexpress future. No point putting "arm" in the path, especially if this > > is later reused on arm64. > > You wouldn't be making that argument if it were arch/arm64 and arch/arm32 - > you'd probably be arguing that "arm" made perfect sense. Well... in a sense: yes. But in the end, having per arch directories under drivers/ is silly. We already have per arch directories under arch/already. > Don't get too hung up on names please, it's really not worth the time > and effort being soo pedantic, and being soo pedantic leads to "pointless > churn" when someone comes along and wants to pedantically change the > names because it no longer matches the users. At this point I don't really care about the name. I just want the damn thing merged upstream. But after several iterations to either fit one or another maintainers taste, each rework ends up in that maintainer saying: "Now that you've reworked the code, I still don't like it since this no longer fits in my subsystem tree." In fact what we'd need at this point is drivers/code_that_no_subsystem_maintainers_wants/. This is becoming overly ridiculous. Nicolas