On Sun, 2005-07-31 at 23:11 +0100, Mark Underwood wrote:
> As this isn't the only chip of this sort (i.e. a
> multi-function chip not on the CPU bus) maybe we
> should store the bus driver in a common place. If
> needed we could have a very simple bus driver
> subsystem (this might already be in the kernel, I
> haven't looked at the bus stuff) in which you register
> a bus driver and client drivers register with the bus
> driver. Just an idea :-).
This was the idea with the drivers/soc suggestion although I think that
name is perhaps misleading.
How about drivers/mfd where mfd = Multi Functional Devices?
I think it would be acceptable (and in keeping with the other drivers
e.g. pcmcia) to seeing the arch and platform specific modules with the
main driver as long as the naming reflected it (like the existing mcp
and ucb code does) i.e.:
mcp-core.c
mcp-sa1100.c
ucb1x00-code.c
ucb1x00-assabet.c
ucb1x00-collie.c
If code can be separated out into subsystems, I'm not so sure where they
should go though. The existing policy would suggest
drivers/input/touchscreen and sound/xxx for these...
ucb1x00-ts.c
ucb1x00-audio.c
Opinions/Comments?
Richard
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |