On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 11:39 PM, Stéphane Chatty <chatty@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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? Ouch, it will introduce more and more complexity. 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 Cheers, Benjamin > > St. > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
