Messages in this thread | | | From | Arnd Bergmann <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] spi: reorganize drivers | Date | Mon, 6 Jun 2011 17:04:27 +0200 |
| |
On Monday 06 June 2011, Stefan Richter wrote: > On Jun 06 Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Monday 06 June 2011, Jean Delvare wrote: > On drivers/firewire/: > > FireWire drivers are currently spread over drivers/firewire (three > link-layer controller drivers + the IEEE 1394 core + two IEEE 1394 > application layer drivers), drivers/media/dvb/firewire/ (one 1394 > application layer driver), sound/firewire/ (two 1394 application layer > drivers, more are planned to be added there). > > From the Linux driver model POV, > 1. the IEEE 1394 core driver implements the firewire bus, > 2. the link-layer controller drivers implement pci bus based devices, > 3. the IEEE 1394 application layer drivers implement firewire bus based > devices. The two of them that are located in drivers/firewire/ > expose a SCSI LLD (a transport in SCSI Architecture Model terms, but > a host rather than a transport in Linux implementation terms) and a > networking interface driver. > > Number 2 is something one would expect to find in a hypothetical > drivers/bus/ directory. But where do the others belong? > > Would type 1 drivers be kept in drivers/bus/firewire/? I understand your > above response to Jean that this is what you have in mind.
Correct.
> firewire-sbp2 could be moved into drivers/scsi/, and firewire-net could be > moved into drivers/net/. But what about maintenance? They could still be > maintained via linux1394-2.6.git because this worked so far, but then the > directory structure might irritate people who don't use > scripts/get_maintainer.pl all the time. Well, I could actually picture > firewire-net to be maintained via the net development tree, but I do > wonder how well firewire-sbp2 maintenance through the scsi tree would work.
I guess the real question is whether firewire should be considered a bus like USB or a device class like SCSI, and it's abit of a grey area (SCSI is too). If you declare it to be a bus, I'd suggest moving the sbp2 and network drivers to drivers/scsi and drivers/net. If you like to think of firewire as a closed subsystem instead, it's probably better to leave all of it in drivers/firewire.
> PS, > these are the same questions like with USB, only on a smaller scale. (The > usb-storage driver is maintained through the usb tree as well, not the > scsi tree. drivers/net/usb/ has got T: git .../gregkh/usb-2.6.git > assigned in MAINTAINERS but most of the commits there are actually done by > DaveM.)
The difference that I see with usb-storage is that this one is really a set of different drivers for all sorts of devices, while the firewire sbp2 driver feels more like a single driver that includes a few special cases. Also, USB is generally perceived as a generic interconnect, while firewire is seen primarily as a way to attach disk drives.
The differences are of course gradual.
Arnd
| |