[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <877fuddq2c.fsf@ashishki-desk.ger.corp.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 16:23:07 +0200
From: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>
To: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Pratik Patel <pratikp@...eaurora.org>, peter.lachner@...el.com,
norbert.schulz@...el.com, keven.boell@...el.com,
yann.fouassier@...el.com, laurent.fert@...el.com,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v0 01/11] stm class: Introduce an abstraction for System Trace Module devices
Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org> writes:
> I forgot to mention in my previous email... I think the hierarchy of
> our respective tracing module along with the generic-stm probably
> needs a review.
>
> Currently we have drivers/coresight, drivers/intel_th and drivers/stm.
>
> To me it doesn't scale - what happens when other architectures come
> out with their own hw tracing technologies?
>
> I suggest we move everything under drivers/hwtracing and as such have:
>
> drivers/hwtracing
> drivers/hwtracing/intel_ht
> drivers/hwtracing/coresight
> drivers/hwtracing/stm
>
> That way other architectures can add drivers for their own hw tracing
> technology without further polluting the drivers/ directory and
> concentrating everything in the same area. What's your view on that?
I wanted to suggest something similar, actually, if you don't mind
moving drivers/coresight, then let's do it.
Regards,
--
Alex
--
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