Re: Use of drivers/platform and matching include?

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 05:26:57PM -0700, Rohit Vaswani wrote:
> 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
> >> <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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

That seems reasonable, but I'd have to see the code to verify this.

greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/