From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754209AbcDDB6H (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Apr 2016 21:58:07 -0400 Received: from conssluserg-03.nifty.com ([210.131.2.82]:65066 "EHLO conssluserg-03.nifty.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751018AbcDDB6G (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Apr 2016 21:58:06 -0400 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 conssluserg-03.nifty.com u341vvnS021205 X-Nifty-SrcIP: [209.85.161.173] MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160403182543.GQ19428@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1459694367-18635-1-git-send-email-yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> <20160403182543.GQ19428@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 10:57:56 +0900 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/9] ARM: start to move arch/arm/mach-* to arch/arm/platforms/* From: Masahiro Yamada To: Russell King - ARM Linux Cc: linux-arm-kernel , Arnd Bergmann , Olof Johansson , Rob Herring , =?UTF-8?Q?Emilio_L=C3=B3pez?= , Mark Brown , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC support" , Matthias Brugger , Marcus Cooper , Maxime Ripard Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Russell, 2016-04-04 3:25 GMT+09:00 Russell King - ARM Linux : > On Sun, Apr 03, 2016 at 11:39:18PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: >> We have growing number of mach-* directories in arch/arm, and I guess >> it might be a good time to discuss moving them into a sub-directory. > > What does it buy us? Let me summarise the actual change: > > - Move up to 71 arch/arm/mach-* directories to arch/arm/platforms/*, > which just means another level of directory structure. We still > end up with up to 71 directories in arch/arm/platforms/ True, but we can separate non-SoC directories (kernel/, mm/, configs/, etc.) from mach- directories, at least. > - The ability to use obj-y rather than machine-y, where both already > work in the same way. Yes, but Kbuild standard Makefiles might provide more flexible directory structures to tidy up similar SoC families from the same vendor. For example, arch/arm/platforms/samsung/ arch/arm/platforms/samsung/exynos/ arch/arm/platforms/samsung/s3c64xx/ instead of arch/arm/plat-samsung/ arch/arm/mach-exynos/ arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/ I am missing something, though. > Is there anything I missed? > > If that is all, then I really do not like this change - it's seems > to be churn for no benefit, and that's something we really should be > minimising. Linus Torvalds has historically moaned at the ARM > architecture for stuff like this. OK. -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: yamada.masahiro@socionext.com (Masahiro Yamada) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 10:57:56 +0900 Subject: [RFC PATCH 0/9] ARM: start to move arch/arm/mach-* to arch/arm/platforms/* In-Reply-To: <20160403182543.GQ19428@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1459694367-18635-1-git-send-email-yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> <20160403182543.GQ19428@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Russell, 2016-04-04 3:25 GMT+09:00 Russell King - ARM Linux : > On Sun, Apr 03, 2016 at 11:39:18PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: >> We have growing number of mach-* directories in arch/arm, and I guess >> it might be a good time to discuss moving them into a sub-directory. > > What does it buy us? Let me summarise the actual change: > > - Move up to 71 arch/arm/mach-* directories to arch/arm/platforms/*, > which just means another level of directory structure. We still > end up with up to 71 directories in arch/arm/platforms/ True, but we can separate non-SoC directories (kernel/, mm/, configs/, etc.) from mach- directories, at least. > - The ability to use obj-y rather than machine-y, where both already > work in the same way. Yes, but Kbuild standard Makefiles might provide more flexible directory structures to tidy up similar SoC families from the same vendor. For example, arch/arm/platforms/samsung/ arch/arm/platforms/samsung/exynos/ arch/arm/platforms/samsung/s3c64xx/ instead of arch/arm/plat-samsung/ arch/arm/mach-exynos/ arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/ I am missing something, though. > Is there anything I missed? > > If that is all, then I really do not like this change - it's seems > to be churn for no benefit, and that's something we really should be > minimising. Linus Torvalds has historically moaned at the ARM > architecture for stuff like this. OK. -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada