On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 10:13 AM Olof Johansson <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 10:08 AM Olof Johansson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 07:25:49PM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 08:28:14AM -0700, Patrick Venture wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 8:22 AM Patrick Venture <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 7:26 AM Patrick Venture <[email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Create a SoC folder for the ASPEED parts and place the misc drivers > > > > > > currently present into this folder. These drivers are not generic > > > > > > part > > > > > > drivers, but rather only apply to the ASPEED SoCs. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Patrick Venture <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > Accidentally lost the Acked-by when re-sending this patchset as I > > > > > didn't see it on v1 before re-sending v2 to the larger audience. > > > > > > > > Since there was a change between v1 and v2, Arnd, I'd appreciate you > > > > Ack this version of the patchset since it changes when the soc/aspeed > > > > Makefile is followed. > > > > > > I have no objection for moving stuff out of drivers/misc/ so the SOC > > > maintainers are free to take this. > > > > > > Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]> > > > > I'm totally confused. This is the second "PATCH v2" of this patch that I > > came > > across, I already applied the first. > > > > Patrick: Follow up with incremental patch in case there's any difference. > > Meanwhile, please keep in mind that you're adding a lot of work for people > > when > > you respin patches without following up on the previous version. Thanks! > > Not only that, but subthreads were cc:d to [email protected] and some > were not, so I missed the overnight conversation on the topic. > > If this email thread is any indication of how the code will be > flowing, there's definitely need for more structure. Joel, I'm hoping > you'll coordinate.
To be honest, this patchset thread was a bit less clear than anyone prefers. I use get_maintainers to get the initial list, and so adding arm@ or soc@ per a request tells me that perhaps those should be output via that script. > > I'm with Arnd on whether the code should be in drivers/soc or not -- > most of it likely should not. I think the misc drivers for a SoC that are a single user interface that is focused on the use-case that belongs to that SoC only belong in soc/, while if there is something we can do in common -- different story. If it makes sense to just have misc/aspeed/ instead of soc/aspeed -- would that align more? > > > -Olof
