almesber@lrc.di.epfl.ch wrote on 22.08.00 in <20000822042628.I15237@lrc.di.epfl.ch>:
> Does this sound reasonable ?
Yes, but does it work in practice?
Let's try to make it in a set of rules.
1. General layout:
drivers/<bus> (PCI, USB) vs. drivers/<type> (net, block).
Subdirectories as necessary. Hierarchical subdirectories: step back and
see if you shouldn't introduce a new drivers subdir instead.
2. If it's something that drives a bus as such, it belongs in drivers/
<bus>.
3. If it's arch specific but you can't really point at a bus, take <arch>
or something like it as a bus name. (atari/amiga, for example? For s390,
you *could* use "channel".)
4. If it drives a specific kind of kernel interface instead of specific
hardware, it probably doesn't belong into drivers/ (vfs in fs/ or
networking in net/ for example).
5. If it drives something available on more than one bus (and you can
actually do that with a single driver), it belongs in drivers/<type>,
where type is usually a specific kind of kernel-internal interface (block,
char, net, say). Possibly something more specific according to rule 1.
6. If it drives something only available on a certain bus, you have the
option of having it under drivers/<bus> or drivers/<type>. drivers/<type>
may well be the better choice, so people looking for this type of driver
will find it, assuming the type isn't unique to your bus.
Hmm. That doesn't leave all that much under drivers/<bus>.
MfG Kai
-
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 - 21:00:07 EST