Re: [PATCH v1] i2c-hid: introduce HID over i2c specification implementation

[Jiri Kosina]

On Sat, 6 Oct 2012, Jean Delvare wrote:

> > The question is what drives the choice of where to put HID-over-XXX, among the following
> >  1- who the maintainer is. Here, Benjamin will probably maintain this 
> > so it does not help.
> >  2- dependencies. HID-over-XXX depends on HID as much as it depends on 
> > XXX, so it does not help.
> >  3- data flow. Indeed, HID is a client of HID-over-XXX which is a 
> > client of XXX. Are there other parts of the kernel where this drives 
> > the choice of where YYY-over-XXX lives?
> > 
> > Jiri, Marcel, Greg, others, any opinions?
> 
> My vote is a clear 3. It took me a few years to kick all users (as
> opposed to implementers) of i2c from drivers/i2c and finding them a
> proper home, I'm not going to accept new intruders. Grouping drivers
> according to what they implement makes it a lot easier to share code
> and ideas between related drivers. If you want to convince yourself,
> just imagine the mess it would be if all drivers for PCI devices lived
> under drivers/pci.

This is more or less consistent with my original opinion when I was 
refactoring the HID layer out of the individual drivers a few years ago.

But Marcel objected that he wants to keep all the bluetooth-related 
drivers under net/bluetooth, and I didn't really want to push hard against 
this, because I don't have really super-strong personal preference either 
way.

But we definitely can use this oportunity to bring this up for discussion 
again.

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
--
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/