Status of arch/arm in linux-next
linus.walleij at linaro.org
Wed Apr 20 02:36:55 EDT 2011
2011/4/19 Dave Jones <davej at redhat.com>:
> The platform drivers are by their nature architecture specific,
> so arch/ seems apropos. drivers/platform/arm/ maybe ?
I opted for putting stuff in there, it was not popular, it will probably
just cause overpopulation there instead, like drivers/misc is doing
right now :-(
> Though, having arm do something different to every other arch seems
> a bit awkward too. Everyone else has their cpufreq platform driver
> somewhere under arch/whatever/../cpufreq/.. so changing that
> violates the principle of least surprise.
> I'm also not convinced that moving them would increase review of changes.
> What problem is this solving again ?
Recent complaints from Linus (the other one) about overpopulation
bad code reuse and patch collision churn in the arch/arm/* tree.
If all cpufreq drivers (including the x86 ones!) were under
drivers/cpufreq/* it would mean better review and more
opportunity for consolidation I guess? We could begin the move
with a few ARM architectures. Do you agree?
More information about the linux-arm-kernel