lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Oct]   [7]   [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 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-10-07 19:01    [W:0.086 / U:0.640 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site