From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A172FB6F64 for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:43:56 +1000 (EST) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 23:43:49 -0400 From: Dave Jones To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Add cpufreq driver for Momentum Maple boards Message-ID: <20110629034348.GB30973@redhat.com> References: <1308316207-9075-1-git-send-email-dbaryshkov@gmail.com> <1308316207-9075-2-git-send-email-dbaryshkov@gmail.com> <1309318110.32158.520.camel@pasglop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1309318110.32158.520.camel@pasglop> Cc: Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov , Paul Mackerras , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, cpufreq@vger.kernel.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 01:28:30PM +1000, Ben Herrenschmidt wrote: > Before I comment on this last one, a quick Q. for Dave: Do you want to > handle this or should I merge it via powerpc.git ? (It depends on > another change to the arch code to expose the SCOM functions that it > uses, and that patch is going to be in my -next branch). If you're carrying the dependancy, it sounds like it would make more sense for you to carry this too. There are some changes to the Kconfig/Makefile in drivers/cpufreq in my tree for 3.1 already, so you might get a collision when both trees end up in next & subsequently Linus' tree. Just trivial changes though. > > --- > > drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig | 5 + > > drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.powerpc | 7 + > > drivers/cpufreq/Makefile | 5 + > > drivers/cpufreq/maple-cpufreq.c | 314 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > If we're going to have a Kconfig.powerpc, should we maybe just have a > powerpc subdirectory instead with the driver in it ? > > I'm happy at some later point to try moving some of my other ones there. So far we haven't bothered with additional subarch drivers/ directories for x86/arm. I'm not against the idea. As more archs move over, I could see drivers/cpufreq/ getting more cluttered. Dave