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-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
