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. On the other hand, I believe the Marcel will be arguing the bluetooth devices are actually network devices, and he has got a point as well (even though I personally consider bluetooth keyboard to be much more HID device than network device). -- 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
