Le 6 oct. 2012 à 23:28, Jiri Kosina a écrit : > 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.
Then shouldn't is be drivers/input, rather? St. -- 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
