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. Can't comment on in-tree SoCs, but out of tree (they use Linux but don't submit anything upstream as far as I can tell), Sigma Designs use ARM & MIPS CPU architectures, with the clock/timing registers, irq registers and more or less everything else being the same among them. -- Jamie -- 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
