Hello, On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Shilimkar, Santosh <santosh.shilimkar@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Eduardo Valentin > <eduardo.valentin@xxxxxx> wrote: >> This patch exposes the definitions under control.h to >> drivers outside the machine code. >> >> Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <eduardo.valentin@xxxxxx> >> --- > After second thought, this complete header movement needs to avoided. > Drivers should not anyway include something like <mach/control.h> > > May be split the control.h header file data into .. > - defines used by mach-omap2/* files which can remain in "control.h" > in existing location. OK.. > - common functions/defines used across drivers/*, mach-omap2/*, > plat-omap/*, should > go to include/linux/omap_control.h Right.. > - Driver specific defines like thermal, usb etc, should go to > respective drivers file. Indeed. > > What do you think ? I think we are in line. And I believe I saw a similar comment by Benoit in other email thread. Having a better thinking of this, it makes sense to have the definition specific to drivers in the driver scope only, as they are going to be used only there anyway. I will drop this patch off and update the remaining changes accordingly (drop the change in control.h for thermal specific and move it to omap_bandgap.h). > > Regards > santosh -- Eduardo Valentin _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
