On Friday, July 01, 2016 04:23:40 PM Will Deacon wrote: > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 09:48:02PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote: > > On 2016/6/30 21:27, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > >On Thursday, June 30, 2016 10:10:02 AM Hanjun Guo wrote: > > >>GTDT is part of ACPI spec, drivers/acpi/ is for driver code of > > >>ACPI spec, I think it can stay in drivers/acpi/ from this point > > >>of view, am I right? > > > > > >The question is not "Can it?", but "Does it need to?". > > > > > >It is in the spec, but still there's only one architecture needing it. > > > > > >There is no way to test it on any other architecture and no reason to build it > > >for any other architecture, so why does it need to be located in drivers/acpi/ ? > > > > I'm fine to move it to other places such as arch/arm64/kernel/, but I > > would like to ask ARM64 maintainer's suggestion for this. > > > > Will, Catalin, what's your opinion on this? > > We don't have any device-tree code for the architected timer under > arch/arm64, so I don't see why we should need anything for ACPI either. And I don't see a reason for the GTDT code to be there in drivers/acpi/. What gives? Maybe it should go to the same place as the analogus DT code, then? Thanks, Rafael -- 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
