From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261785AbVHBVun (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Aug 2005 17:50:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261807AbVHBVun (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Aug 2005 17:50:43 -0400 Received: from tim.rpsys.net ([194.106.48.114]:27321 "EHLO tim.rpsys.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261785AbVHBVuf (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Aug 2005 17:50:35 -0400 Subject: Re: Where is place of arch independed companion chips? From: Richard Purdie To: Greg KH Cc: Jamey Hicks , Andrey Volkov , linux-fbdev-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20050801181357.GA31144@suse.de> References: <42EB6A12.70100@varma-el.com> <42EE15AF.5050902@hp.com> <20050801181357.GA31144@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 22:49:39 +0100 Message-Id: <1123019379.7782.86.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.1.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 11:13 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > Good question. I was about to submit a patch that created > > drivers/platform because the toplevel driver for MQ11xx is a > > platform_device driver. Any thoughts on this? > > drivers/platform sounds good to me. In another thread (about the ucb1x00) we came up with the idea of drivers/mfd (mfd = multi function devices). The core and platform specific parts would live here with suitable clear naming and the subsection specific parts that were separable would live in the appropriate place within the kernel. Just another idea to add to the mix and removes the dilemma of a multifunction device with isn't platform based... Richard