From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bjorn Andersson Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] msm: scm: Move the scm driver to drivers/soc/qcom Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2014 13:12:57 -0700 Message-ID: References: <1407202310-3359-1-git-send-email-sboyd@codeaurora.org> <1407202310-3359-9-git-send-email-sboyd@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Lina Iyer Cc: Stephen Boyd , David Brown , Kumar Gala , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , linux-arm-msm , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" List-Id: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 9:07 PM, Lina Iyer wrote: > On Mon, 4 Aug 2014, Stephen Boyd wrote: [...] > Could we move scm-boot.c as well to drivers/soc/qcom and scm-boot.h to include/soc/qcom ? Yes, we can do that. But as of now we seem to only have one caller of this wrapper, so maybe we could move the functionality into platsmp.c and drop the file instead? I looked at this a while back and was considering suggesting that we move the scm access behind firmware_ops, but then we should probably also extend the ops struct with all the needed ops related to firmware loading and other things; so I'm not sure if it's a beneficial move. Regards, Bjorn From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753987AbaHEUNA (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Aug 2014 16:13:00 -0400 Received: from mail-oi0-f49.google.com ([209.85.218.49]:40918 "EHLO mail-oi0-f49.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753741AbaHEUM6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Aug 2014 16:12:58 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1407202310-3359-1-git-send-email-sboyd@codeaurora.org> <1407202310-3359-9-git-send-email-sboyd@codeaurora.org> Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2014 13:12:57 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] msm: scm: Move the scm driver to drivers/soc/qcom From: Bjorn Andersson To: Lina Iyer Cc: Stephen Boyd , David Brown , Kumar Gala , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , linux-arm-msm , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 9:07 PM, Lina Iyer wrote: > On Mon, 4 Aug 2014, Stephen Boyd wrote: [...] > Could we move scm-boot.c as well to drivers/soc/qcom and scm-boot.h to include/soc/qcom ? Yes, we can do that. But as of now we seem to only have one caller of this wrapper, so maybe we could move the functionality into platsmp.c and drop the file instead? I looked at this a while back and was considering suggesting that we move the scm access behind firmware_ops, but then we should probably also extend the ops struct with all the needed ops related to firmware loading and other things; so I'm not sure if it's a beneficial move. Regards, Bjorn From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: bjorn@kryo.se (Bjorn Andersson) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2014 13:12:57 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 8/8] msm: scm: Move the scm driver to drivers/soc/qcom In-Reply-To: References: <1407202310-3359-1-git-send-email-sboyd@codeaurora.org> <1407202310-3359-9-git-send-email-sboyd@codeaurora.org> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 9:07 PM, Lina Iyer wrote: > On Mon, 4 Aug 2014, Stephen Boyd wrote: [...] > Could we move scm-boot.c as well to drivers/soc/qcom and scm-boot.h to include/soc/qcom ? Yes, we can do that. But as of now we seem to only have one caller of this wrapper, so maybe we could move the functionality into platsmp.c and drop the file instead? I looked at this a while back and was considering suggesting that we move the scm access behind firmware_ops, but then we should probably also extend the ops struct with all the needed ops related to firmware loading and other things; so I'm not sure if it's a beneficial move. Regards, Bjorn