On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 07:04:45PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday, April 26, 2011, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Thursday 21 April 2011, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > > > if there's commonality between some of the ARM arch drivers, why can't > > > > there be a arch/arm/cpufreq/ dir for the shared code, and do everything there ? > > > > > > Because usually there isn't. "ARM" is just a CPU architecture, not a > > > system architecture. Everything around the core is different from one > > > vendor to the next. And when commonality exists it is much easier to > > > deal with if it is close together. > > > > Exactly. To make matters worse, we are starting to see a number of vendors > > that use multiple CPU architectures with the same I/O devices (e.g. Renesas, > > Freescale, Xilinx, TI, ...). Not sure if any of these use the same cpufreq > > register on more than one architecture, but it's quite likely to happen > > at some point. > > Indeed. So in my opinion it makes sense to move code into the drivers > directory, at least the code that's going to be used by multiple platforms > (that need not be a complete driver). Ok, so my opinion on this has changed a little over the weekend. I don't totally hate it now, but I'm still not a huge fan. That said, I won't stand in the way if this is what everyone agrees is the way forward. in cpufreq.next I moved the x86 drivers over. Someone look it over ? If that looks like what you all had in mind, start sending me the patches for other arches, and I'll get them queued up for .40 Dave -- 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
