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

[Jiri Kosina]

On Sat, 6 Oct 2012, Jiri Kosina wrote:

> > 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.

Basically, to me this all boils down to the question -- what is more 
important: low-level transport being used, or the general function of the 
device?

To me, it's the latter, and as such, everything would belong under 
drivers/hid.

On the other hand, I believe the Marcel will be arguing the bluetooth 
devices are actually network devices, and he has got a point as well (even 
though I personally consider bluetooth keyboard to be much more HID device 
than network device).

-- 
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/