On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 05:27:33PM +0100, Fu Wei wrote:

On 26 May 2015 at 23:36, Guenter Roeck [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 04:18:42PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:

quoted

Sure, the device it describes may only ever exist on ARM systems, but by
that logic then we should be moving lots of drivers back under arch/arm[64].

It is nt the driver, but its instantiation. The question here would be
how and where to instantiate the driver, not where the driver itself
is located. The driver itself is ACPI agnostic.

I really don't mind to refactor the code, If we can make this patch better.

But for now, I can't see the good reason to move ACPI-relevant code
into a watchdog driver.

I don't really mind where you move it, just as long as it's outside of
arch/arm64.

The reasons I put the code here are
(1)SBSA watchdog only for ARM64
(2)GTDT only for ARM, design for ARM,
(3)For ARM Architecture, only ARM64 support ACPI.

For minimizing arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c, we can't put the code here,
and we had better keep these code outside the driver,

So do you have any suggestion for the better location of the GTDT code?

I don't understand why you can't do the same as
drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c and parse the table directly in the
driver. If there are objections from the driver/subsystem maintainers then
it sounds like we need a mechanical ACPI table -> platform device
conversion in the core, like we have for device-tree.

Will
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html