Status of arch/arm in linux-next
davej at redhat.com
Tue Apr 26 14:15:08 EDT 2011
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 07:04:45PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 26, 2011, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Thursday 21 April 2011, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > > if there's commonality between some of the ARM arch drivers, why can't
> > > > there be a arch/arm/cpufreq/ dir for the shared code, and do everything there ?
> > >
> > > Because usually there isn't. "ARM" is just a CPU architecture, not a
> > > system architecture. Everything around the core is different from one
> > > vendor to the next. And when commonality exists it is much easier to
> > > deal with if it is close together.
> > Exactly. To make matters worse, we are starting to see a number of vendors
> > that use multiple CPU architectures with the same I/O devices (e.g. Renesas,
> > Freescale, Xilinx, TI, ...). Not sure if any of these use the same cpufreq
> > register on more than one architecture, but it's quite likely to happen
> > at some point.
> Indeed. So in my opinion it makes sense to move code into the drivers
> directory, at least the code that's going to be used by multiple platforms
> (that need not be a complete driver).
Ok, so my opinion on this has changed a little over the weekend.
I don't totally hate it now, but I'm still not a huge fan.
That said, I won't stand in the way if this is what everyone agrees is
the way forward.
in cpufreq.next I moved the x86 drivers over. Someone look it over ?
If that looks like what you all had in mind, start sending me the patches
for other arches, and I'll get them queued up for .40
More information about the linux-arm-kernel