Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 16 December 2015 at 02:27, Krzysztof Kozlowski > <k.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> 2015-12-16 10:11 GMT+09:00 Sebastian Reichel <sre@xxxxxxxx>: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 04:53:31PM -0800, Eric Anholt wrote: >>>> >> There are 6 power domain drivers in >>>> >> arch/arm, 3 in drivers/clk, and 3 in drivers/soc. >>>> > >>>> > If we ever have to support a different architecture which happens to use >>>> > a similar power domain, then we want it to be in a location which makes >>>> > it easy for sharing it in the first place. As it stands today, it does >>>> > not seem useful to me to have this code in arch/arm/mach-bcm/ at all. >>>> > >>>> > Maybe there is room from a drivers/power/domains/ of some kind? >>> >>> I like the idea, but let's include generic power domain maintainers >>> in this discussion, as I suggested here (I got a power domain driver >>> patch for drivers/power just a few days ago): >>> >>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/12/15/815 >>> >>> Also somebody would have to step up to maintain that directory. >> >> This could go into drivers/soc. We put there a lot of mach-specific >> stuff which we want to make a little more generic (like generic enough >> multiplatform, multiarchitecture etc). Rockchip has its own power >> domains there. Dove and Mediatek seem as well but I am not sure. Some >> other architectures keep this still in arm/mach (exynos, ux500, zx, >> imx, s34c64xx, shmobile) but this looks more of like a legacy choice. > > Agree, drivers/soc is good. OK, I've resent with a move to drivers/soc/bcm/.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
