Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de> writes: > On Thursday 26 March 2015, Robert Jarzmik wrote: >> >> Greg Kroah-Hartman <gre...@linuxfoundation.org> writes: >> >> > On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 05:02:57PM +0100, Robert Jarzmik wrote: >> >> If there is no solution, I'll fallback through arch/arm/plat-pxa, not >> >> very nice, >> >> but it has to land somewhere, I don't want lubbock to remain broken. >> > >> > drivers/platform/arm ? >> Most certainly. >> >> I'll submit that to drivers/platform/arm/pxa, and maintain that pxa tree. As >> for >> drivers/platform/arm, do you want also maintainers to step up, or will you >> take >> the review/merge burden ? >> > > I'd much prefer not to add drivers/platform/arm, which would make it too easy > to add random stuff there. What is the problem with leaving it in mach-pxa? Hi Arnd,
It's not as much a problem as a generic question : does a driver belong to arch/* ? Personaly it would have been far simpler for me to have it through the pxa tree, but I want to be sure it's the right place. Others will follow, pxa mainstone is such a candidate. I was thinking so far that arch/arm/mach-* was for machine description, ie. wirings, interconnections, initial setup etc ... The "driver" part, ie. code really driving dynamics in IPs was as per my understanding in drivers/... Now I can create arch/arm/mach-pxa/lubbock_cplds.c, that won't make any difference to me, provided that it's the right thing to do. Cheers. -- Robert -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
