On 07/08/2014 11:47 AM, Olof Johansson wrote: > On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 6:43 AM, Peter De Schrijver > <pdeschrijver@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 02:44:17AM +0200, Olof Johansson wrote: >>> On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 03:23:45PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: >>>> This branch moves code related to the Tegra fuses out of arch/arm and >>>> into a centralized location which could be shared with ARM64. It also >>>> adds support for reading the fuse data through sysfs. >>> >>> The new/moved misc driver isn't acked by any misc maintainer, so I can't >>> take this branch. >>> >>> I saw no indication from searching the mailing list of that either, >>> so it wasn't just a missed acked-by. >>> >>> I wonder if this code should go under drivers/soc/ instead? >> >> It's modelled after sunxi_sid.c which lives in drivers/misc/eeprom/. >> Originally this driver was also in drivers/misc/eeprom/, but Stephen objected >> and therefore it was moved to drivers/misc/fuse. I think that's the right >> place still. > > I disagree, I think this belongs under drivers/soc. Especially since > you're adding dependencies on this misc driver from other parts of the > kernel / other drivers. > > I also don't like seeing init calls form platform code down into > drivers/misc like you're adding here. Can you please look at doing > that as a regular init call setup? I strongly disagree with using init calls for this kind of thing. There are ordering dependencies between the initialization code that can only be sanely managed by explicitly calling functions in a particular order; there's simply no way to manage this using initcalls. This is exactly why the hooks in the ARM machine descriptors exist... -- 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
