[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BANLkTinGMN8A99YZMVa1XDRuy3rUSO2UGg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 21:45:56 -0400
From: Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
x86@...nel.org, Clemens Ladisch <clemens@...isch.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
uclinux-dist-devel@...ckfin.uclinux.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [uclinux-dist-devel] [PATCH] firmware: Make firmware drivers
generally available
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 20:35, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 02:25:21PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 14:11, Clemens Ladisch wrote:
>> > "drivers/firmware" is the obvious name for both, but that makes
>> > it ambiguous. I'd suggest to split the two subsystems into
>> > "drivers/host-firmware" and "drivers/device-firmware".
>
>> i honestly dont see how this is better. the drivers/firmware/ isnt
>> exactly overflowing, and differentiating between the two modes doesnt
>> seem to gain us anything.
>
> Do we have anything like an actual subsystem in firmware? If we do and
> it's sensible to do things that affect all firmwares then splitting
> seems reasonable but if not then it's less clear.
i dont think there is. we havent hit enough critical mass yet to warrant it.
-mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists