[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131004115022.GN12758@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 12:50:22 +0100
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To: Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, Feng Kan <fkan@....com>,
Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: Use of drivers/platform and matching include?
On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 10:54:07AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> It wouldn't be a huge deal to add something like arch/arm/syslib and
> give some of the system library-type code a home there -- stuff like
> resource allocation libraries, etc. I don't think we want to collect
> all the back-end drivers in there though, just libraries.
We don't need yet another subdirectory in arch/arm - yes, that's a
favourite way of avoiding any issues, but really it's not the right
answer. We already have a place for shared cross-platform code, and
it's called arch/arm/common.
> I think many of us are hesitant to introduce something that runs the
> risk of becoming a dumping ground for all these "I don't know where to
> put them, so here you go" drivers, since we've spent so much time
> cleaning them all up and de-forking per-vendor implementations of
> similar things.
"Drivers go under drivers/" is what we've decided. If we want to change
that, then we should move all those IRQ, gpio and clock drivers back out
of the drivers/ subtree, because many of them are SoC specific.
Please, think back to why we made the original decision(s) to move this
stuff out of arch/arm.
--
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