On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 11:04 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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? Well, since there are things like acpi_lpss in there, my position here is kind of weak. :-) That said I'm not particularly happy with having them in drivers/acpi/, so I definitely won't object against attempts to moving them somewhere else. > Maybe it should go to the same place as the analogus DT code, then? I'm mostly concerned about how (and by whom) that code is going to be maintained going forward, though. I also think it should be made clear that it is ARM64-only. 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
