linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] mfd: lubbock

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <201503281424.02583.arnd@arndb.de>
Date:	Sat, 28 Mar 2015 14:24:02 +0100
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Cc:	Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@...e.fr>,
	Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	"Russell King - ARM Linux" <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	"Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov" <dbaryshkov@...il.com>,
	"Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@...il.com>,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
	Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] mfd: lubbock_cplds: add lubbock IO board

On Saturday 28 March 2015, Robert Jarzmik wrote:
> It's not as much a problem as a generic question : does a driver belong to
> arch/* ?
> 
> Personaly it would have been far simpler for me to have it through the pxa tree,
> but I want to be sure it's the right place. Others will follow, pxa mainstone is
> such a candidate.
> 
> I was thinking so far that arch/arm/mach-* was for machine description,
> ie. wirings, interconnections, initial setup etc ... The "driver" part, ie. code
> really driving dynamics in IPs was as per my understanding in drivers/...
> 
> Now I can create arch/arm/mach-pxa/lubbock_cplds.c, that won't make any
> difference to me, provided that it's the right thing to do.

If we had a lot of these, we would probably put them somewhere under drivers.
and find a maintainer for them. Given that this is an exceptional case for
an older machine, my feeling is that leaving the code in mach-pxa is the least
effort for now.

	Arnd
--
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/