Re: Use of drivers/platform and matching include?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 10/5/2013 10:13 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 09:48:41AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 6:22 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 12:41:28PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
So, no, there will be no new drivers under arch/arm.  They must be in the
drivers subtree somewhere.
I have no objection with this, and encourage it.
Ok, so these are some of the requirements as far as I see it:

* No per-vendor driver dumping ground under drivers/* (i.e. no
drivers/platform/<soc vendor>/)
Yes.

We agree that there is no need for a dump *all* drivers under arm/mach-foo in drivers/platform/foo/. The msm bus driver would be added under drivers/bus/. But, we still have some drivers which are quite SoC specific and not in the general category of the sub-directories present under drivers.
As Kumar mentioned earlier -

An example driver would be the means we utilize to communicate memory regions between various HW blocks on the SoC.  So a video/media core driver might need access to a header/functions from the memory region driver.

Would drivers/misc/qcom-* or drivers/misc/qcom/* be a reasonable place to add them ? and the headers could go into include/linux/qcom-*.h

<snip>

Thanks,
Rohit Vaswani

--
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation

--
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




[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [Linux for Sparc]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux