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

Le 6 oct. 2012 à 23:28, Jiri Kosina a écrit :

> On Sat, 6 Oct 2012, Jiri Kosina wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
> Basically, to me this all boils down to the question -- what is more
> important: low-level transport being used, or the general function of the
> device?
>
> To me, it's the latter, and as such, everything would belong under
> drivers/hid.

Then shouldn't is be drivers/input, rather?

St.


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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-10-07 00:01    [W:0.730 / U:0.308 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site