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

[Stéphane Chatty]

Le 6 oct. 2012 à 23:28, Jiri Kosina a écrit :

> 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.

Then shouldn't is be drivers/input, rather?

St.


--
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/