[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180111095152.GI3626@vireshk-i7>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 15:21:52 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux ARM Mailing List <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
Lucas Stach <l.stach@...gutronix.de>,
Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@....com>,
Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>, Xu Wei <xuwei5@...ilicon.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 00/13] drivers: Boot Constraint core
On 10-01-18, 10:54, Olof Johansson wrote:
> The SoC-specific pieces should preferrably go under drivers/soc
> instead, to reduce cross-tree dependencies when introducing new SoC
> variants.
>
> They're more related to the SoC than to the boot_constraint framework anyway.
Hmm, okay.
> Bikeshed: We've traditionally had really terse and precise names under
> drivers/. This is the first verbose one with a _ in it. Maybe find a
> shorter name or just concatenate to 'bootconstraints'? We didn't call
> it remote_proc or rapid_io, etc, either. :)
Sure.
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists