From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754055AbbATQal (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Jan 2015 11:30:41 -0500 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:39588 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752375AbbATQaj (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Jan 2015 11:30:39 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,862,1389772800"; d="scan'208";a="442771097" Message-ID: <1421770556.31903.98.camel@linux.intel.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/4] mfd: reorganize Intel drivers From: Andy Shevchenko To: Lee Jones Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mika Westerberg Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 18:15:56 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20150120154644.GF13701@x1> References: <1418313236-10764-1-git-send-email-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <20150120134857.GK13701@x1> <1421763412.31903.70.camel@linux.intel.com> <20150120154644.GF13701@x1> Organization: Intel Finland Oy Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.9-1+b1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2015-01-20 at 15:46 +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > On Tue, 20 Jan 2015, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Tue, 2015-01-20 at 13:48 +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > > > On Thu, 11 Dec 2014, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > > > > This patchset creates a new folder under drivers/mfd and moves there Intel > > > > related drivers. > > > > > > > > There is no functional change. The names of the kernel configuration variables > > > > are kept the same. > > > > > > Can you explain to me why you think the Intel drivers need their own > > > sub-directory please? > > > > For me it seems logical. We have many drivers related to Intel specific > > SoCs (in comparison the other mfd drivers that usually named in > > according to some standard chip codename) and they meanwhile have long > > awkward prefixes. Moreover they could share common dependencies like > > X86. > > I'm not comfortable with it and am yet to see the need. What I would > suggest is to prefix 'intel-' or similar to the related files. From > there we can see how overbearing the files are becoming and make a > decision based on that. > > If there are too many Intel related files, my first question(s) will > be a) why are there so many files b) are so many files required and c) > should they really live in MFD. > > But as yet, this patch-set is the only indication that something needs > to be done at all. > Agreed. We will continue to use prefixes (intel_ for *.c, *.h files, and module names, and intel- for resulting *.ko files) and simultaneously think how we can arrange the files better. -- Andy Shevchenko Intel Finland Oy