lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Aug]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Re: Move of input drivers, some word needed from you
On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 02:01:59PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Aug 2000, Philipp Rumpf wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 12:02:03PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > I think what might be saving us right now is that there is only one widely-used
> > bus architecture (PCI and it's derivatives/predecessors), so no-one is going to
> > implement conflicting new features in both parts of a split driver.
>
> And this is not going to change. Everything but PCI is dead, and there
> isn't going to be multiple different buses. Sure, we'll have some serial
> new-generation stuff, and we'll continue to have things like USB, but I'm
> not worried about having the same chip on different buses. It'
> s a thing of the past.

Possible. It's also possible people will go back to having many protocols, if
only because it's just another few K of firmware ROM on the device side and the
fibre connection is physically identical.

> > I don't think "there aren't going to be a great many file in this directory"
> > is really a good argument against creating a directory, except for the very
> > special case that there would be no files at all in it.
>
> I think you're wrong.
>
> Logical naming and hierarchy are only helpers. If they lead to people
> finding the files more quickly and understanding them better, they are
> doing their job.

> If hierarchy leads to having to look more places, think about it more, and

According to my proposal, we would end up having all network drivers in
drivers/*/net/*.
Currently we have arch/*/drivers/net/*, drivers/net/*, drivers/net/*/*, and
drivers/*/net/*.
> just more work, that hierarchy is BAD. It doesn't matter if it is logical
> or not. It sucks. It just ends up being in your way.
I agree with the general statement. I also think it applies to the current
hierarchy more strongly than to the proposed new hierarchy. The current
hierarchy isn't logical, but it also doesn't give you a low number of places
to look in for drivers. My opinion about the next point should be pretty
obvious, and I do believe it is getting in the way of people actually trying
to read some drivers.

> We could create a subdirectory for each driver. In some cases we _do_
> that (tulip and ide come to mind). But in the end, it should be done only
> when it clarifies things, not just because somebody thinks it "ought" to
> be that way.

Just to avoid misunderstandments, I never proposed creating a directory for
each driver. I agree it's a bad idea.

> And "there aren't going to be many files in this directory" is an argument
> against it. It means that the directory doesn't end up clarifying things
> very much at all.

I would say drivers/s390/net and drivers/s390/misc are good directories.
They clarify things. Most people just couldn't care less for them, and
those people can safely ignore all of drivers/s390. Most people don't care
for sbus, acorn, or sgi, either. some weird embedded people don't care
about PCI. Most people don't care about weird embedded people's devices.

Philipp
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:37    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean