From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Trilok Soni Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] ARM: OMAP2+: SmartReflex: move the driver specific macros in include/linux/power Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 12:23:25 +0530 Message-ID: <4F7D4165.2060101@codeaurora.org> References: <1332173578-27422-1-git-send-email-j-pihet@ti.com> <1332173578-27422-3-git-send-email-j-pihet@ti.com> <4F7C9C89.9080605@codeaurora.org> <4F7CA3E1.2050809@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4F7CA3E1.2050809@ti.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Cousson, Benoit" Cc: Kevin Hilman , jean.pihet@newoldbits.com, LKML , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, Jean Pihet , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org Hi Benoit, > > The main motivation is that it's a driver and thus does not have > anything to do inside mach-omap2. Right, I understood that. mach-omap2 is not suitable for full fledged drivers. > > Where will you put that otherwise? Couple of suggestions: drivers/platform/omap/avs? drivers/misc/omap/avs? I prefer first one. > > IIRC, David Brownell was referring to the rule of three for such case. > Meaning that it worth having a generic fmwk when at least three > different drivers are doing the same kind of things. Yes, I remember that rule, but that's not stopping us to create a fwk, may be others will rise once they see the framework and contribute if their h/w architecture requirements are not addressed? ---Trilok Soni -- -- Sent by a consultant of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.