From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Frysinger Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 01:45:56 +0000 Subject: Re: [uclinux-dist-devel] [PATCH] firmware: Make firmware drivers Message-Id: List-Id: References: <20110617103218.GA29723@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <1308310831-27861-1-git-send-email-lars@metafoo.de> <4DFB53B3.8070806@ladisch.de> <4DFB98EE.9000609@ladisch.de> <20110621003507.GG1905@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> In-Reply-To: <20110621003507.GG1905@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit To: Mark Brown Cc: Fenghua Yu , Lars-Peter Clausen , linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, Tony Luck , x86@kernel.org, Clemens Ladisch , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , uclinux-dist-devel@blackfin.uclinux.org, Thomas Gleixner On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 20:35, Mark Brown wrote: > On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 02:25:21PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 14:11, Clemens Ladisch wrote: >> > "drivers/firmware" is the obvious name for both, but that makes >> > it ambiguous.  I'd suggest to split the two subsystems into >> > "drivers/host-firmware" and "drivers/device-firmware". > >> i honestly dont see how this is better.  the drivers/firmware/ isnt >> exactly overflowing, and differentiating between the two modes doesnt >> seem to gain us anything. > > Do we have anything like an actual subsystem in firmware?  If we do and > it's sensible to do things that affect all firmwares then splitting > seems reasonable but if not then it's less clear. i dont think there is. we havent hit enough critical mass yet to warrant it. -mike