> > (Also, note that "platform", "host", and "board" are ambiguous. > > In some contexts each is synonymous; in others, not. I avoid > > In this specific case I am talking about, they're not.
That is, in *YOUR* usage context they're not. I had to parse what you wrote a few times before your comments about $SUBJECT started to make sense. I've *never* heard "host" used that way, and rarely hear "platform" used that way either. > The platform for a ThinkPad is either i386 or amd64. Both i386 and x86_64 are clearly an "arch". They even live in an "arch" directory: linux/arch/{i386,x86_64}. When folk talk about a "PC Platform", they're talking about a thing that doesn't quite exist in today's Linux tree. If we ever get to an arch/x86, that could have a plat-pc (or mach-pc) subdirectory. ThinkPads should then be a variant of that. > I don't feel like drivers like hdaps, thinkpad-acpi, dock, bay, > and many others really belong in the platform bus. But that's > what happens right now. As a rule, there needs to be a Good Reason to create a new bus type. A "feel" is a pretty weak reason... - Dave - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/