[PATCH 1/2][RFC] at91 : move pm.h header to include/mach

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 10:46:48AM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 01/04/2012 11:10 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 11:31:05AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> >> This header should probably be named something more specific like
> >> at91_pm.h or at91_sdram.h. This will be needed to avoid name collisions
> >> with mach headers on a single kernel binary.
> > 
> > I think actually the idea that mach/*.h headers can be included by stuff
> > outside of arch/arm is something that we should deprecate, because it's
> > not going to be sane to make them all unique in this way.
> > 
> > Not only that but it prevents the .c files being built on other
> > architectures, and provides another reason why the .c file is tied to
> > a pariticular SoC - even if the same IP is used in a different SoC, it
> > can be used as a reason why not to reuse the .c file.
> > 
> > Let's not give people excuses not to share code!
> 
> As the pm.h file should be included from drivers/cpuidle/at91_idle.c,
> does it make sense to move
> 	arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.h to arch/arm/include/asm/at91_pm.h ?

Not really.  If code is being moved out of arch/arm, their dependent
headers should also be moved out of arch/arm as well.  It makes no
sense to move the code out of arch/arm into drivers if it still
requires headers only found in arch/arm to build.