Use of drivers/platform and matching include?

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 09:48:41AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 6:22 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh at linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 12:41:28PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> >>
> >> So, no, there will be no new drivers under arch/arm.  They must be in the
> >> drivers subtree somewhere.
> >
> > I have no objection with this, and encourage it.
> 
> Ok, so these are some of the requirements as far as I see it:
> 
> * No per-vendor driver dumping ground under drivers/* (i.e. no
> drivers/platform/<soc vendor>/)

Yes.

> * No weirdly constructed single-driver directories directly under
> drivers/* (we already have a few and should look at moving those)
> because nothing else fits

Yes, we should see about moving some of the ones we currently have,
drivers/ntb/ is one example that I couldn't think of a better place to
put it.  I guess drivers/misc/ really would be best for a bunch of
these.  As an example, drivers/misc/mic/ is way larger than
drivers/ntb/.

> * We need some sort of convention on dependencies. Several of these
> are more libraries than drivers, i.e. we'll have cross-calls for
> things like queue management, resource allocation, etc. So having a
> single location to hold most of these makes sense instead of
> everything cross-depending on everything else.

What's wrong with lib/ for that?  Isn't that supposed to be where this
type of thing goes?

> Based on the above, how about we create something like
> drivers/resourcemgr to hold these?   I think at least parts of the
> mvebu-mbus driver that ended up under drivers/bus might be a fit to
> move there. The APM queue allocator would likely be a fit, and maybe
> some of the qualcomm stuff. Kumar, what are your thoughts on that?
> Greg?

lib/ does look "big", but we also have kernel/ for the current resource
stuff, as it is core code.  Why not use that?

thanks,

greg k-h