linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/9] ARM: OMAP2+: SmartReflex: move the driver specific macros in include/linux/power

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4F7CA3E1.2050809@ti.com>
Date:	Wed, 4 Apr 2012 21:41:21 +0200
From:	"Cousson, Benoit" <b-cousson@...com>
To:	Trilok Soni <tsoni@...eaurora.org>
CC:	<jean.pihet@...oldbits.com>, <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Jean Pihet <j-pihet@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] ARM: OMAP2+: SmartReflex: move the driver specific
 macros in include/linux/power

On 4/4/2012 9:10 PM, Trilok Soni wrote:
> Hi Jean,
>
> On 3/19/2012 9:42 PM, jean.pihet@...oldbits.com wrote:
>> From: Jean Pihet<j-pihet@...com>
>>
>> Move the driver specific macros from the smartreflex header file
>> (arch/arm/mach-omap2/smartreflex.h) in a new header file
>> include/linux/power/smartreflex.h.
>>
>> This change makes the SmartReflex implementation ready for the move
>> to drivers/.
>
> I wonder why someone would need a new directory under drivers/power
> where the code is not about introducing new and generic AVS framework
> but it is all about OMAP specific code.

The main motivation is that it's a driver and thus does not have 
anything to do inside mach-omap2.

Where will you put that otherwise?

> What if tomorrow new generic
> AVS framework comes from different chip vendor? I am sure this kind
> of technology would be common in newer embedded chips.

Probably, but this is hard to know with only one implementation so far 
in the kernel.
I guess when someone else will start pushing some new AVS driver inside 
the AVS directory, we might realize that there is enough common part to 
create a frwmk.

IIRC, David Brownell was referring to the rule of three for such case. 
Meaning that it worth having a generic fmwk when at least three 
different drivers are doing the same kind of things.

Regards,
Benoit
--
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/