2011/4/19 Dave Jones <davej@xxxxxxxxxx>: > The platform drivers are by their nature architecture specific, > so arch/ seems apropos. drivers/platform/arm/ maybe ? I opted for putting stuff in there, it was not popular, it will probably just cause overpopulation there instead, like drivers/misc is doing right now :-( > Though, having arm do something different to every other arch seems > a bit awkward too. Everyone else has their cpufreq platform driver > somewhere under arch/whatever/../cpufreq/.. so changing that > violates the principle of least surprise. > > I'm also not convinced that moving them would increase review of changes. > > What problem is this solving again ? Recent complaints from Linus (the other one) about overpopulation bad code reuse and patch collision churn in the arch/arm/* tree. If all cpufreq drivers (including the x86 ones!) were under drivers/cpufreq/* it would mean better review and more opportunity for consolidation I guess? We could begin the move with a few ARM architectures. Do you agree? Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
