Hi Bryan, On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 22:54 +0100, Bryan Huntsman wrote: > 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. Ok, great. Let's leave it like it is for the time-being and if other people start using things from the vfp headers then we should consider refactoring some of that code (currently I think it's restricted to this patch series and some files under vfp/). Cheers, Will -- 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