On 10/5/2013 10:13 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 09:48:41AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 6:22 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gre...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 12:41:28PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
So, no, there will be no new drivers under arch/arm. They must be in the
drivers subtree somewhere.
I have no objection with this, and encourage it.
Ok, so these are some of the requirements as far as I see it:
* No per-vendor driver dumping ground under drivers/* (i.e. no
drivers/platform/<soc vendor>/)
Yes.
We agree that there is no need for a dump *all* drivers under
arm/mach-foo in drivers/platform/foo/. The msm bus driver would be added
under drivers/bus/. But, we still have some drivers which are quite SoC
specific and not in the general category of the sub-directories present
under drivers.
As Kumar mentioned earlier -
An example driver would be the means we utilize to communicate memory regions
between various HW blocks on the SoC. So a video/media core driver might need
access to a header/functions from the memory region driver.
Would drivers/misc/qcom-* or drivers/misc/qcom/* be a reasonable place to add
them ? and the headers could go into include/linux/qcom-*.h
<snip>
Thanks,
Rohit Vaswani
--
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation
--
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/
