On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 05:27:33PM +0100, Fu Wei wrote: > On 26 May 2015 at 23:36, Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 04:18:42PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > >> Sure, the device it describes may only ever exist on ARM systems, but by > >> that logic then we should be moving lots of drivers back under arch/arm[64]. > >> > > It is nt the driver, but its instantiation. The question here would be > > how and where to instantiate the driver, not where the driver itself > > is located. The driver itself is ACPI agnostic. > > I really don't mind to refactor the code, If we can make this patch better. > > But for now, I can't see the good reason to move ACPI-relevant code > into a watchdog driver. I don't really mind where you move it, just as long as it's outside of arch/arm64. > The reasons I put the code here are > (1)SBSA watchdog only for ARM64 > (2)GTDT only for ARM, design for ARM, > (3)For ARM Architecture, only ARM64 support ACPI. > > For minimizing arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c, we can't put the code here, > and we had better keep these code outside the driver, > > So do you have any suggestion for the better location of the GTDT code? I don't understand why you can't do the same as drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c and parse the table directly in the driver. If there are objections from the driver/subsystem maintainers then it sounds like we need a mechanical ACPI table -> platform device conversion in the core, like we have for device-tree. Will -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
