On 12/20/2013 03:42 AM, bilhuang wrote: > On 12/20/2013 06:33 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote: >> On 20 December 2013 15:55, bilhuang <bilhuang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Don't you think it worth creating a file here so this can be shared to >>> arm64? >> >> We will see how to handle virtual devices when we will start getting >> arm64 SoCs. Probably we might end up writing a single file in cpufreq, >> if required, that will create virtual devices for every arm64 platform.. >> >> So, some people might use it and others wouldn't.. But no platform >> specific files for such stuff. So, the best we can do for now is to move >> these to platform code as we are talking about arm32 SoC's for now >> which do have a mach-* directory.. >> > OK thanks, this is suggested by Stephen earlier, I'll let him comment in > case he might think otherwise. No, I definitely don't agree here. The rules for arch/arm64 are: no platform-specific code. We should immediately start planning for that. If this means renaming the file that creates the virtual device from tegra-cpufreq.c to something else, so be it, but we shouldn't go backwards and push stuff into the arch directories. -- 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
