On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 12:29:41AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 9:19 PM, Darren Hart dvhart@infradead.org 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 dvhart@infradead.org 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.
Agreed. I always prefer to make decisions based on Documented precedent whenever possible.