On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 10:29:48AM +0200, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Mon, 2013-04-01 at 11:35 +0530, Deepthi Dharwar wrote: > > But then, this means we get all the > > arch specific code out under drivers/cpuidle > > which can be very messy. > > Not really no. We already have that here or there in other drivers, > it's not necessarily messy and the stuff like that can generally be made > reasonably self contained. > > The main issue is that if I (powerpc) wants a fix in my > some_ppc_box_idle.c driver, especially if it needs to sync with other > arch changes, having to sync/ack with Rafael might complicate things a > bit (though not necessarily a lot). > > I would probably keep the liberty of sending to Linus directly urgent > bug/regression fixes to individual cpuidle drivers relating to our archs > without waiting every now and then if for example Rafael is on > vacation :-) Merging them all over sounds like a good idea to me as well. This isn't too different from how we handle other subsystems; as architecutre maintainer you just use your judgement on what needs an ack vs cc. Some smaller details about how the backend of the driver works on a platform is quite different from refactoring portions of the framework. -Olof -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
