Re: [RFC PATCH 0/9] Add support for Microsoft Surface System Aggregator Module

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 10:38 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 8:59 PM Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 9/24/20 10:26 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 1:28 AM Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > Note that drivers that connect to the bus typically don't live in the
> > > same subdirectory as the driver that operates the bus. E.g. the
> > > battery driver would go into drivers/power/supply and the input
> > > would go into drivers/input/ or drivers/hid.
> >
> > Right. I wonder if this also holds for devices that are directly
> > dependent on a special platform though? It could make sense to have them
> > under plaform/surface rather than in the individual subsystems as they
> > are only ever going to be used on this platform. On the other hand, one
> > could argue that having them in the subsystem directories is better for
> > maintainability.
>
> Yes, absolutely. The subsystem maintainers are the ones that are
> most qualified of reviewing code that uses their subsystem, regardless
> of which bus is used underneath the device, and having all drivers
> for a subsystem in one place makes it much easier to refactor them
> all at once in case the internal interfaces are changed or common bugs
> are found in multiple drivers.

The problem is that some of the drivers are mostly reincarnation of
board files due to the platform being Windows-oriented with badly
written ACPI tables / firmware as a whole (which means a lot of quirks
are required).

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko