From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761625AbcLPW3w (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Dec 2016 17:29:52 -0500 Received: from mail-oi0-f67.google.com ([209.85.218.67]:36324 "EHLO mail-oi0-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758059AbcLPW3n (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Dec 2016 17:29:43 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20161216191951.GC44199@f23x64.localdomain> References: <1481306510-7471-1-git-send-email-irina.tirdea@intel.com> <1481306510-7471-2-git-send-email-irina.tirdea@intel.com> <1a98dcda-a662-958e-307f-5fe3f281ed9f@linux.intel.com> <20161216183607.GB44199@f23x64.localdomain> <20161216191951.GC44199@f23x64.localdomain> From: Andy Shevchenko Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2016 00:29:41 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/3] clk: x86: Add Atom PMC platform clocks To: Darren Hart Cc: Pierre-Louis Bossart , Irina Tirdea , linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, "x86@kernel.org" , platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, Stephen Boyd , Thomas Gleixner , Michael Turquette , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , ALSA Development Mailing List , Mark Brown , Takashi Iwai , Pierre-Louis Bossart , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Len Brown , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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 Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 9:19 PM, Darren Hart wrote: > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 08:49:13PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Darren Hart wrote: >> > On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 02:26:21AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> >> On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 2:15 AM, Pierre-Louis Bossart >> > There should really be some Documentation about how to choose an include >> > directory :-) >> >> So true! (1) > The options are: > > a) include/linux/x86 > b) include/linux/platform_data/x86 Correct. > In my opinion, a) looks like architecture and would be difficult to distinguish > from arch/x86/include. b) on the other hand clearly notes that it is for > platform specific information. If it was platform instead of platform_data, that > would be even better, but that could be a later change. But I think the > confusion over x86 arch in a) is worse than the more subtle (in my opinion) > distinction between "platform" and "platform_data". > > I would want x86 maintainer approval before adding a), while b) I'm happy to add > ourselves - and we already have agreement from tglx on that. > > To move forward, let's go with b). Let me say I'm not fully satisfied, though for sake of moving forward I agree with these arguments. > The new x86 directory clearly separates out > content which will make it trivial to move later if the need arises. See (1). I would really appreciate if some agreement and documentation will be developed. In that case one of us would really have one serious argument to one of the sides. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko