On 04/01/11 10:27, Will Deacon wrote: > Neil, > > On Tue, 2011-03-29 at 22:04 +0100, Neil Leeder wrote: >> Any opinions on what would be the best thing to do here? Choices appear to be: >> >> 1) allow the relative include path of ../vfp/vfpinstr.h >> 2) move the definitions of fmrx, fmxr from vfp/vfpinstr.h to include/asm/vfp.h >> 3) move vfp/vfpinstr.h to include/asm >> 4) other...? >> >> If it helps, I can create a patch for whichever is considered the preferred solution. >> > > I personally don't find option (1) that offensive - Bryan seemed to > differ though so perhaps option (2) would keep him happy? > > I don't think option (3) is sensible given that the majority of the > header file is private to /vfp. > > Will I raised it as a question. If that's the only sane thing to do here, then do it. Since no one else seems to have chimed in on (2) or (3), I'm fine with the patch as-is. - Bryan -- Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
