On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 02:26:21AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 2:15 AM, Pierre-Louis Bossart > <pierre-louis.bossart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> Thanks for an update I will comment all the patches. > >> Here we start. > > > > > > Thanks Andy for the review. Two quick comments before going further in the > > details later. > > > >> > >>> The BayTrail and CherryTrail platforms provide platform clocks > >>> through their Power Management Controller (PMC). > >>> > >>> The SoC supports up to 6 clocks (PMC_PLT_CLK[5:0]) with a > >>> frequency of either 19.2 MHz (PLL) or 25 MHz (XTAL) for BayTrail > >>> and a frequency of 19.2 MHz (XTAL) for CherryTrail. These clocks > >>> are available for general system use, where appropriate, and each > >>> have Control & Frequency register fields associated with them. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Irina Tirdea <irina.tirdea@xxxxxxxxx> > >>> Signed-off-by: Pierre-Louis Bossart > >>> <pierre-louis.bossart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> > >> Who is the actual author? SoB I guess should be either the author, or > >> 1st, 2nd, ..., last one who is submitter. > > > > > > I ported the initial code from Android legacy stuff and Irina ported the > > functionality to the clk framework. It seems appropriate to have both > > signed-offs? > > Yes, but as I mentioned: > 1) submitter goes last; > 2) SoB lines and Author(s) should reflect actual state of the sources. > If patch has 2 SoBs I'm expecting see different names of Authors in > the source code. *Or* in some cases it's possible to explain in the > commit message why you have former SoB and for what the credit that > person(s) get. > > >>> +#include <linux/platform_data/x86/clk-byt-plt.h> > > > > > > This was a suggestion of Darren Hart in agreement with Thomas Gleixner. > > see > > http://mailman.alsa-project.org/pipermail/alsa-devel/2016-October/113936.html > > Hmm... Thanks for pointing to this I didn't aware about such details. > > But... I still insist that is not a platform data at all in both cases. > > For clock I would suggest include/linux/clk/ with x86_ prefix. > For the rest I have no strong opinion except trying to avoid > platform_data wording in the path as much as possible. > > As an example I could recall DMA engine subsystem where we have > > include/linux/platform_data/dma-*.h > > and > > include/linux/dma/*.h > > So, this sounds more to me as > > include/linux/x86/pmc_atom.h There should really be some Documentation about how to choose an include directory :-) My understanding is include/linux should be more generic, rather than platform specific headers. So while platform_data may refer specifically to the platform bus drivers, it's the closest thing we have to include/platform, which would be ideal. I would prefer to stick with include/platform_data because: 1) Semantically, it's the closest thing there is 2) include/linux should be for more generic headers related to the OS or subsystems 3) It doesn't make sense to create a separate include/platform directory for a single header. 4) We don't want to rename platform_data to platform now and change all the drivers, but it could be changed later. Thomas, do you disagree with any of the above? > > > Darren, did we get your proposal right? > Yes, your submission matches the intent from Thomas and I as I understand it. > >> > >> Is it indeed platform data? I would not create platform_data/x86 > >> without strong argument. > >> Perhaps include/linux/clk/x86_pmc.h? (Yes, I know about clk-lpss.h > >> which is old enough and was basically first try of clk stuff on x86) > > -- > With Best Regards, > Andy Shevchenko > -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe platform-driver-x86" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
