> I actually believe we should follow the standard convention here, and have > just one hid-<vendor> driver for all google products. Currently we have > hid-google-hammer, and this would add hid-google-vivaldi. Would you (or > Wei-Ning, CCing here) object on merging these two together? I'm a bit reluctant to merge them. Partly because I'm not familiar with the hid-google-hammer driver, but mostly because this driver is intended to handle non-google products which will use a google-defined usage code. Perhaps I should drop "google" from the driver name? Thanks, Sean O'Brien
