On Thu, 4 Apr 2002 09:54, Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 09:31:55AM +1000, Brad Hards wrote: > > Not very orthogonal. Can you explain the rationale for each directory? > > Um, didn't the descriptions of the directories help explain that? I like things to be explicit. Saves confusion and makes sure everyone has the same view of where things "belong". I am not trying to make it difficult, just making sure I understand where you are coming from?
> > What takes precedence? That the driver complies with a (currently > > defined) class, or the function that the driver performs? > > class comes first. Then function. And then it goes into misc/ if it > doesn't fit into any of the existing function directories. Then why doesn't most of storage/ live under class/ ? Also, does the class have to be approved (eg USBIF 1.0 status)? What happens with things that comply with draft classes? What if the draft class isn't publically available (eg USBIF <0.9)? > > acm.c and CDCEther (that probably should be cdc-acm.c and cdc-ether.c if > > there is going to be a grand renaming patch :) are both basically > > networking drivers (although they don't both interface to the networking > > system), both comply with the same spec, and don't live in the same > > directory. > > You're right, sorry. They should both be in class/ OK. I'd still like them to be renamed. > > If the "higher level interface" is important, why doesn't dsbr100 belong > > with the video stuff, since it uses V4L as well? > > Because I messed up :) You're right, it should go into video. Perhaps multimedia? _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
