[lkml]   [2012]   [Mar]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 4/5] HID: autoload hid-multitouch as needed

    Le 12 mars 2012 à 23:21, Jiri Kosina a écrit :

    > On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Stéphane Chatty wrote:
    >> Just in case it makes a difference, I knew nothing about HIDP when I
    >> wrote the message above. My point was rather that hid looks like a bus
    >> to which several transport layers can connect (USB, Bluetooth, ZigBee,
    >> etc), and that having USB-specific code in hid/ (as opposed to having it
    >> in usb/) seems biased towards USB. I was (and am still) wondering how
    >> much it limits future uses of the hid core by making it USB-dependent.
    >> In other words: is the hid core generic enough or are there steps to
    >> take to make it more generic wrt transport layers? If we are talking
    >> about restructuring parts of it, this seems like the right time to ask
    >> :-)
    > Let me answer by a bit of history here. Originally, there have been two
    > copies of HID code in the kernel -- one for USB HID devices, one for
    > Bluetooth HID devices.
    > The parsers were not kept in sync, and there was a lot of code
    > duplication, creating quite some mess.
    > What I did back then in 2006 was that I have extracted the abstract HID
    > parts into HID core, and made it transport-independent in principle, so
    > that both USB HID and Bluetooth HID shared the common infrastructure,
    > while implementing different transport protocols.
    > Then we extended it a little bit further, making HID core a proper bus, to
    > which individual drivers (independently on underlying transport protocol
    > used) can register.
    > Currently there are just Bluetooth (hidp) and USB (usbhid) transport
    > implementations, with HID core being transport independent.
    > Hope this helps,

    Very useful clarification, thanks. Now, I guess I understand why Marcel wants to keep hidp in bluetooth/. And, to be honest, things would have been clearer to me when I explored the handling of the USB/HID class if I had found a hid (or usbhid) directory in usb/ rather than a usbhid subdirectory in hid/: it did not make the above situation very obvious to me. Don't you think we could go along with Marcel and move usbhid to usb/?


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2012-03-13 11:21    [W:0.021 / U:6.244 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site