[ Ccs trimmed ]
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> In the end, we just have to balance the "everything in one place so that
> it is easy to find" with "uhhuh, that 'ls' output is just too confusing,
> and I can't seem to find my driver any more".
I think there is value in having everything under drivers/... With
drivers/<bus>, we can already cover most of the architecture-specific
bits. Maybe just a few more bus types are needed - e.g. many "system on
a chip" design families have some tiny little bus and all the devices
there are rather unique and may have a lot of shared resources.
On the other hand, drivers/<function> makes sense for generic drivers
(e.g. drivers/char/mem.c) and those supporting many buses. So perhaps a
chipset that is used on many platforms should be split into the bus
interfaces in drivers/<bus> and the portable part in drivers/<fn> ?
This would probably require include/drivers or such, to avoid
cluttering include/linux with tons of additional "internal" files.
Also, drivers/<bus> should probably be reserved for drivers for the bus
itself, with the device drivers in drivers/<bus>/<fn>, or drivers/pci
would look a little nasty ;-)
Furthermore, if a driver starts is existence in drivers/<bus>, and then
turns out to be useful on other buses too, it would have to be split.
This would be a departure from the current implicit assumption that you
pick "The Right Place" once and forever. It would also make it harder
to port somebody else's driver to a second bus. But it would limit code
replication.
Does this sound reasonable ?
- Werner
-- _________________________________________________________________________ / Werner Almesberger, ICA, EPFL, CH werner.almesberger@ica.epfl.ch / /_IN_N_032__Tel_+41_21_693_6621__Fax_+41_21_693_6610_____________________/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 23 2000 - 21:00:06 EST