Re: [PATCH] spi: reorganize drivers

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 14:16, Jean Delvare <khali@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Jun 2011 13:21:07 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Monday 06 June 2011, James Bottomley wrote:
>> > I'd say it only makes sense if we do it for all busses ... so USB and
>> > PCI would have to move too. ÂLogically, the bus code should move and we
>> > should be left with the drivers in both of those directories. ÂI'd also
>> > say that we don't have to deepen the tree: /bus would be fine. ÂThat
>> > way, /drivers/<bus> would be only for <bus> specific drivers, with non
>> > bus specific drivers we just group them by function as now.
>>
>> A top-level /bus would work for me, and I guess would also address Russell's
>> concern. Regarding bus-specific drivers, we're gradually moving those out
>> of the bus specific directories anyway, basically the only bus directory
>> that really has device driver in it is USB at this point. It makes some
>> sense to have a bus-specific low-level user space interface driver like
>> sg or uio in the bus directory, but everything else should really belong
>> into some other subsystem.
>
> Err, what about I2C and SPI? Aren't drivers/i2c/busses and drivers/spi
> full of "device drivers"? Or are these what you call "bus-specific
> drivers"? Maybe we need to define all the terms before the discussion
> continues further.

Arnd did write:

| It does include i2c and spi, which stick out by being a lot larger
than most others.

>> (...)
>> This is about to get worse as we introduce new subsystems (e.g. iommu,
>> irq, clocksource, eeprom, nvram, ...) into which we are moving
>> code from arch/arm, drivers/char and drivers/misc. Having buses and
>> drivers in a separate hierarchy would make the drivers directory and
>> the respective menuconfig list more clearly structured IMHO.
>
> This gets interesting. Would you suggest for example that i2c-core.c
> goes to bus/i2c, and drivers/i2c/busses becomes drivers/i2c? And that
> CONFIG_I2C is somewhere in menuconfig, and the hardware driver
> selection for drivers/i2c is in a totally different place?
>
> While I am surprised, I am not necessarily objecting. But it seems that
> you should better define what your actual plan is, before asking us if
> we agree with it.

Most other drivers are located based use case, i.e. from the user's
point of view,
e.g. drivers/net/ and drivers/video.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

            Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
             Â Â -- Linus Torvalds
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/