linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] power: avs: Move drivers to the soc directories and drop avs

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]

Date:   Wed, 7 Oct 2020 17:09:27 +0200
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:     Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
Cc:     "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Aaro Koskinen <aaro.koskinen@....fi>,
        Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Niklas Cassel <nks@...wful.org>,
        Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] power: avs: Move drivers to the soc directories and
 drop avs

On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 6:05 PM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> The avs drivers in drivers/power/avs/* are all SoC specific drivers that
> doesn't share any code. Instead they are located in a directory, mostly to keep
> similar functionality together. From a maintenance point of view, it makes
> better sense to collect SoC specific drivers like these, into the SoC specific
> directories.
>
> Therefore, this series moves the drivers, one by one - and in the end, it
> deletes the empty avs directory.
>
> It seems best to me, if this can be funneled via Rafael's linux-pm tree. Then
> when going forward, each driver should be managed through the SoC maintainer's
> trees.

That's fine by me.

I'd like to get an ACK from the arm-soc side on this, though.

Cheers!