Em Thu, 06 Mar 2014 16:26:33 +0100 Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 10:06:53AM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > For example PCIe and memory errors are not x86-specific. Also, as ACPI > > may also be used on ARM, we may also start to have APEI errors there: > > https://lwn.net/Articles/574439/ > > https://wiki.linaro.org/LEG/Engineering/Kernel/ACPI > > > > So, better to think on that on a long term. > > kernel/ras/ could also be used in that case but I guess drivers/ras/ is > fine too. Both work for me, although drivers/ras seems more adequate, IMHO, as I expect that we'll have there both subsystem code and drivers. > > > In order to put all RAS drivers under the same place. We may > > eventually have a subdir there for EDAC, and one per RAS report > > mechanism, in order to keep it cleaner. > > That doesn't bring any advantages - edac drivers are just fine in > drivers/edac/. And without benefits for a move, it would be a senseless > code churn only. No, it won't bring any technical advantage. Err... if an EDAC driver or core would depend on something at /drivers/ras, then we may need to add some extra early init glue, in order to be sure that the code at /drivers/ras will be initialized before /drivers/edac, or otherwise it would fail with both are compiled builtin. -- Cheers, Mauro -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
