linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] i2c-hid: introduce HID over i2c specification implementation

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 7 Oct 2012 18:07:50 +0200
From:	Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@...il.com>
To:	Stéphane Chatty <chatty@...c.fr>
Cc:	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>, Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
	Fabien André <fabien.andre@...il.com>,
	劉嘉駿 <scott.liu@....com.tw>,
	Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>,
	Wolfram Sang <w.sang@...gutronix.de>,
	linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, USB list <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] i2c-hid: introduce HID over i2c specification implementation

On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 11:39 PM, Stéphane Chatty <chatty@...c.fr> wrote:
>
> 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?

Ouch, it will introduce more and more complexity.

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

Cheers,
Benjamin

>
> St.
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/