[PATCH v3 2/4] ARM: bcm2835: add rpi power domain driver

[Eric Anholt]

Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson at linaro.org> writes:

> On 16 December 2015 at 02:27, Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <k.kozlowski at samsung.com> wrote:
>> 2015-12-16 10:11 GMT+09:00 Sebastian Reichel <sre at ring0.de>:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 04:53:31PM -0800, Eric Anholt wrote:
>>>> >> There are 6 power domain drivers in
>>>> >> arch/arm, 3 in drivers/clk, and 3 in drivers/soc.
>>>> >
>>>> > If we ever have to support a different architecture which happens to use
>>>> > a similar power domain, then we want it to be in a location which makes
>>>> > it easy for sharing it in the first place. As it stands today, it does
>>>> > not seem useful to me to have this code in arch/arm/mach-bcm/ at all.
>>>> >
>>>> > Maybe there is room from a drivers/power/domains/ of some kind?
>>>
>>> I like the idea, but let's include generic power domain maintainers
>>> in this discussion, as I suggested here (I got a power domain driver
>>> patch for drivers/power just a few days ago):
>>>
>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/12/15/815
>>>
>>> Also somebody would have to step up to maintain that directory.
>>
>> This could go into drivers/soc. We put there a lot of mach-specific
>> stuff which we want to make a little more generic (like generic enough
>> multiplatform, multiarchitecture etc). Rockchip has its own power
>> domains there. Dove and Mediatek seem as well but I am not sure. Some
>> other architectures keep this still in arm/mach (exynos, ux500, zx,
>> imx, s34c64xx, shmobile) but this looks more of like a legacy choice.
>
> Agree, drivers/soc is good.

OK, I've resent with a move to drivers/soc/bcm/.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 818 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-rpi-kernel/attachments/20151216/5f8e7d40/attachment.sig>