From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756354Ab2EETuM (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 May 2012 15:50:12 -0400 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.186]:53840 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756023Ab2EETuK (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 May 2012 15:50:10 -0400 From: Arnd Bergmann To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/02] mach-shmobile: Emma Mobile EV2 - first shot Date: Sat, 5 May 2012 19:50:01 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/3.4.0-rc3; KDE/4.3.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Magnus Damm , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, horms@verge.net.au, linux@arm.linux.org.uk, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lethal@linux-sh.org, olof@lixom.net References: <20120503144645.6390.62303.sendpatchset@w520> <201205051921.13209.arnd@arndb.de> <201205052130.21081.rjw@sisk.pl> In-Reply-To: <201205052130.21081.rjw@sisk.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201205051950.01887.arnd@arndb.de> X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:4FSce1Sc36oCqNkshBOIi+V4oyZsL0X3tYZPMeH71x7 VpFt0ZGwbl3mmE38BBXrLdEtXWHoHADPDciv+NxXD1ZVAzHWCT rHvRK4Asl/R+LIZnTdbxWG8sdM1WSSKqsDdADH1YiDKCNgSwd3 pW7xEV2eoK6i35FxRn1YA6qh6+pF2rfJvIN8Aot7m8vTileKxH H1vp6nwKAdKWf+XbmrhDy+jSVAp10UchurF2brL7LScPLQ/tKv EhTC4hbczabePEx8d0Xh18IcuEN3/EEdgNT4MzSpUuO5SMDy7Z VNJKsvcse5G/M1bbH+kDWYMUMmKlnZJUK5KApxFivu0ZSIW/GO /IhqPBMq7L2jgS9Jk4Rc= Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Saturday 05 May 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > All the chips in there so far share a common ancestry and they all use a > > significant subset of the same drivers shared with arch/sh: i2c-sh_mobile, > > sh-dma-engine, sh_cmt, sh-sci, sh_tmu, intc, pfc and sh_clk. AFAICT, this one > > uses none of those and apparently was developed by NEC before the merger with > > Renesas. > > I see. So your opinion is that it may have more in common with the other > ARM-based platforms? Not with any one in particular, although there are a lot of similarities between recent Cortex-A9 based designs. I just think it would be more logical to put the files into a new mach-emma directory in the same way that every other family has its own directory. As I said, I don't mind if you share infrastructure with mach-shmobile, like using the same mach/*.h header files, but if you end up sharing actual code, it would be nicer to put it into some location where it can also be shared by other platforms. Arnd