On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 10:11:56AM -0700, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> > This driver doesn't have anything to do with the PCI core, other than
> > using the pci_register_driver() interface (just like all other drivers
> > for PCI-connected devices), so drivers/pci doesn't really feel like
> > the right place for it. Putting it in drivers/pci leads to the sort
> > of confusion you mentioned above ("To make this entirely clear ...").
> >
> > Would drivers/perf or drivers/misc/switchtec/ be possible places for
> > it?
>
> I made a similar argument when we made the decision of where to put the
> code. In the end, the device _is_ a PCI Switch and someone going through
> menuconfig or the source tree would probably look there first.
>
> As for drivers/perf, our device does a fair bit more than performance
> counters so it doesn't seem like it really fits in there. drivers/misc
> just seems like a dumping ground which we'd prefer not to contribute to.
> We also considered drivers/char (seeing it exposes a char device), but
> that also seems like a dumping ground with stuff that belongs and other
> stuff that just ended up stuck between the cracks.
>
> If you still feel strongly about this we can move it into misc, but I
> think from an organizational perspective pci/switch makes a bit more sense.
It's not a perfect fit in drivers/pci because it's not bus
infrastructure and I don't want to be the default maintainer of it,
but I agree there's not really an alternative that's clearly better,
so let's leave it where it is for now.
> In any case, I also wish we could have had this discussion 3 months ago
> when we posted the RFC and not when I have people pushing to get this
> merged.
You and me both! I hope some of those same people are pushing to help
avoid the tragedy of the commons by helping review other
contributions.
Bjorn
