lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Oct]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v1] i2c-hid: introduce HID over i2c specification implementation
On Sat, 6 Oct 2012, Jean Delvare wrote:

> > The question is what drives the choice of where to put HID-over-XXX, among the following
> > 1- who the maintainer is. Here, Benjamin will probably maintain this
> > so it does not help.
> > 2- dependencies. HID-over-XXX depends on HID as much as it depends on
> > XXX, so it does not help.
> > 3- data flow. Indeed, HID is a client of HID-over-XXX which is a
> > client of XXX. Are there other parts of the kernel where this drives
> > the choice of where YYY-over-XXX lives?
> >
> > Jiri, Marcel, Greg, others, any opinions?
>
> My vote is a clear 3. It took me a few years to kick all users (as
> opposed to implementers) of i2c from drivers/i2c and finding them a
> proper home, I'm not going to accept new intruders. Grouping drivers
> according to what they implement makes it a lot easier to share code
> and ideas between related drivers. If you want to convince yourself,
> just imagine the mess it would be if all drivers for PCI devices lived
> under drivers/pci.

This is more or less consistent with my original opinion when I was
refactoring the HID layer out of the individual drivers a few years ago.

But Marcel objected that he wants to keep all the bluetooth-related
drivers under net/bluetooth, and I didn't really want to push hard against
this, because I don't have really super-strong personal preference either
way.

But we definitely can use this oportunity to bring this up for discussion
again.

--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-10-06 23:41    [W:0.064 / U:0.460 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site