Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1] i2c-hid: introduce HID over i2c specification implementation | From | Stéphane Chatty <> | Date | Sun, 7 Oct 2012 18:20:54 +0200 |
| |
Le 7 oct. 2012 à 18:07, Benjamin Tissoires a écrit : >>> >>> 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? > > Ouch, it will introduce more and more complexity.
Purely rhetorical question, I agree. But still.
> > It seems that hid transport layers should go in drivers/hid. > However, I don't like mixing the transport layer and the final > drivers. Maybe this is the time to rework a little bit the tree. > To minimize the moves, we could introduce: > drivers/hid/busses/usb > drivers/hid/busses/i2c > drivers/hid/busses/bluetooth
What about creating drivers/hid/core and move all generic stuff there? That is: drivers/hid/core drivers/hid/usb drivers/hid/i2c drivers/hid/bluetooth
Cheers,
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/
| |