On Sat, 6 Oct 2012, Jiri Kosina wrote:

quoted

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.

On the other hand, I believe the Marcel will be arguing the bluetooth 
devices are actually network devices, and he has got a point as well (even 
though I personally consider bluetooth keyboard to be much more HID device 
than network device).

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs