From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Return-Path: Message-ID: <1480362193.21899.35.camel@linux.intel.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/platform/intel-mid: Constify mid_pci_platform_pm From: Andy Shevchenko To: Bjorn Helgaas , Lukas Wunner Cc: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 21:43:13 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20161128192530.GO16033@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com> References: <20161128192530.GO16033@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 List-ID: On Mon, 2016-11-28 at 13:25 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: +Cc: Rafael > I can't remember a discussion about having this code in drivers/pci in > the first place.  Would it make sense to move it to > arch/x86/platform/intel-mid/? > > 8e522e1d321b ("x86/platform/intel-mid: Add Intel Penwell to ID table") > fixed a sync issue and added a comment about staying in sync with > arch/x86/platform/intel-mid/pwr.c.  Maybe moving this code to arch/x86 > would help with that? > > Looks like we'd have to expose pci_platform_pm_ops and > pci_set_platform_pm(), but setting platform-specific PM ops does seem > like something that would fit in the arch directories, so maybe that > wouldn't be a bad thing. We have pci-acpi.c there which is used AFAIU by drivers/acpi. I'm not sure that it's a good idea to spread users of pci_platform_pm_ops under arch/x86 and drivers/acpi. OTOH I have no strong opinion. Whatever fits better. -- Andy Shevchenko Intel Finland Oy