On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 9:19 PM, Darren Hart <dvhart@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 08:49:13PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Darren Hart <dvhart@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > 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 >> > There should really be some Documentation about how to choose an include >> > directory :-) >> >> So true! (1) > The options are: > > a) include/linux/x86 > b) include/linux/platform_data/x86 Correct. > In my opinion, a) looks like architecture and would be difficult to distinguish > from arch/x86/include. b) on the other hand clearly notes that it is for > platform specific information. If it was platform instead of platform_data, that > would be even better, but that could be a later change. But I think the > confusion over x86 arch in a) is worse than the more subtle (in my opinion) > distinction between "platform" and "platform_data". > > I would want x86 maintainer approval before adding a), while b) I'm happy to add > ourselves - and we already have agreement from tglx on that. > > To move forward, let's go with b). Let me say I'm not fully satisfied, though for sake of moving forward I agree with these arguments. > The new x86 directory clearly separates out > content which will make it trivial to move later if the need arises. See (1). I would really appreciate if some agreement and documentation will be developed. In that case one of us would really have one serious argument to one of the sides. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko -- 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
