On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 5:23 PM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hans...@linaro.org> wrote: > > + Arnd > > On Wed, 7 Oct 2020 at 17:09, Rafael J. Wysocki <raf...@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 6:05 PM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hans...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > The avs drivers in drivers/power/avs/* are all SoC specific drivers that > > > doesn't share any code. Instead they are located in a directory, mostly > > > to keep > > > similar functionality together. From a maintenance point of view, it makes > > > better sense to collect SoC specific drivers like these, into the SoC > > > specific > > > directories. > > > > > > Therefore, this series moves the drivers, one by one - and in the end, it > > > deletes the empty avs directory. > > > > > > It seems best to me, if this can be funneled via Rafael's linux-pm tree. > > > Then > > > when going forward, each driver should be managed through the SoC > > > maintainer's > > > trees. > > > > That's fine by me. > > > > I'd like to get an ACK from the arm-soc side on this, though. > > I have looped in Arnd, to get his opinion on this. > > Although, I think the people on cc already send pull requests to the > arm-soc maintainers (or perhaps it was these people you were referring > to), so just awaiting their acks should be fine, I guess.
OK For now, I've taken patches [2-3/4] that have been ACKed. When the [1/4] is ACKed, I'll take it too and apply the last one. Thanks!
