On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 11:27:33PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wednesday 04 January 2012, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > > My thinking was that having a drivers/tty/serial dir and then > > > not having all the serial drivers in that dir violated the > > > principle of least surprise. Is there a reason why the dir should > > > be the exclusive domain of drivers with a dependency on SERIAL_CORE? > > > > Because that is what the directory is for? :) > > > > We have other "serial" like drivers all over the kernel, this was for > > the SERIAL_CORE drivers only at the moment. > > My initial plan when moving some files to drivers/tty was to have a separate > directory for the non-SERIAL_CORE serial drivers next to drivers/tty/serial. > > I would still prefer this solution, but I think we never agreed on a good > name for that directory. IIRC, I had suggested drivers/tty/legacy believing > that SERIAL_CORE was the modern way to implement a serial driver, but that > turned out not to be true and at lease one of these (bfin_jtag) is not > a legacy driver in practice. > > Maybe drivers/tty/hw? I think that one has been suggested before, too. > I don't remember any argument against it and I think it would be nice > to separate the core implementation from actual device drivers. How about: drivers/tty/serial_core <= drivers based on SERIAL_CORE drivers/tty/serial <= the rest This makes it obvious that one directory is for drivers based on SERIAL_CORE - and the other is sort of the "rest". I know this imply moving files around again :-( Sam -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-serial" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
