On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 05:26:57PM -0700, Rohit Vaswani wrote: > 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 That seems reasonable, but I'd have to see the code to verify this. greg k-h -- 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
