On Sun, 2010-03-28 at 18:03 +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote: > On Sunday 28 March 2010 17:38:31 Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > Hans Verkuil wrote:
> > So, let's get some feedback from developers about this again. Whatever > > decided, > > we should clearly document the used criteria, to avoid having drivers > > misplaced. > > 1) Reusable subdev drivers go into the subdev directory. OK by me. I will note the cx25840 module is used stand-alone and by the cx23885 and cx231xx drivers as an integrated A/V core. However the integrated core is internally I2C connected so it's fairly loosely coupled. I don't see a problem with the cx25840 module being pushed into a subdev directory. > 2) Subdev drivers that are tightly coupled to a bridge or platform driver go > into the subdirectory containing that bridge or platform driver. Ack. > Rule 1 applies to roughly 50 subdev drivers. > > I wonder if for rule 2 we should require that subdev drivers would go into a > <bridge driver>/subdev directory. It would help in keeping track of what is > what, > but this may be overkill. NAK. That is overkill. BTW, here are some exceptional cases to ponder: Where does the cx2341x module go? It is common code used by ivtv, cx18, and cx23885 (and probably cx88), but it is not a subdevice. Also some code in cx23885/cx23888-ir.c could be broken out and shared between the cx25840, cx18, and cx231xx modules since it is the same IR hardware (mostly), but connected to the bridge chip differently. Where would that go? Regards, Andy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
