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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
