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

[Stéphane Chatty]

Le 7 oct. 2012 à 18:07, Benjamin Tissoires a écrit :
>>> 
>>> 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?
> 
> Ouch, it will introduce more and more complexity.

Purely rhetorical question, I agree. But still.

> 
> It seems that hid transport layers should go in drivers/hid.
> However, I don't like mixing the transport layer and the final
> drivers. Maybe this is the time to rework a little bit the tree.
> To minimize the moves, we could introduce:
> drivers/hid/busses/usb
> drivers/hid/busses/i2c
> drivers/hid/busses/bluetooth

What about creating drivers/hid/core and move all generic stuff there? That is:
drivers/hid/core
drivers/hid/usb
drivers/hid/i2c
drivers/hid/bluetooth

Cheers,

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/