From: Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>
Cc: Uwe Kleine-Koenig <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>,
linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Ben Dooks <ben-linux@fluff.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: add i2c tree for embedded platforms
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 16:25:15 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100126162515.230bdf36@hyperion.delvare> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100126143830.GC12774@fluff.org.uk>
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 14:38:30 +0000, Ben Dooks wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 11:10:55AM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 10:20:34 +0100, Uwe Kleine-K??nig wrote:
> > > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-K??nig <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
> > > Cc: Ben Dooks <ben-linux@fluff.org>
> > > ---
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I wonder if it makes sence to split the "I2C SUBSYSTEM" entry into
> > > something like:
> > >
> > > I2C SUBSYSTEM (PC drivers, core)
> > > M: Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>
> > > L: ...
> > > W: ...
> > > T: quilt ...
> > > S: ...
> > > F: Documentation/i2c/
> > > F: drivers/i2c/
> > > F: include/linux/i2c.h
> > > F: include/linux/i2c-*.h
> > >
> > > I2C SUBSYSTEM (embedded platforms)
> > > M: Ben Dooks <ben-linux@fluff.org>
> > > L: ...
> > > W: ...
> > > T: git ...
> > > S: ...
> > > F: drivers/i2c/
> > > F: include/linux/i2c-*.h
> > >
> > > (I'm not entirely sure about the file patterns for the 2nd entry.)
> >
> > I'm not sure what value it adds, compared to having a single entry as
> > we have today. scripts/get_maintainer.pl will produce the same output,
> > won't it?
> >
> > This script (and our minds) being directory-driven, I suspect that the
> > only efficient way to split the entries would be to first move all i2c bus
> > driver for embedded platforms to a separate subdirectory. I'm leaving
> > it to Ben and the embedded community to decide whether they want to do
> > that or not.
>
> I'd much prefer to see just the one directory of i2c drivers, the
> minor point being people silly enough to load modules by explicit path
Never thought of that, but I wouldn't care. There is no good reason to
do this.
> and the second is that having all the drivers in one place makes it
> easier to update them when changing something in the core...
This doesn't seem to be a blocker either. For one thing, i2c
subsystem-wide changes tend to affect chip drivers more than bus
drivers. And even then, looking for drivers in 2 directories doesn't
seem much harder than looking into just one, especially when said 2
directories live next to each other.
So I see no objection to a mass move of all embedded/system i2c bus
drivers to a separate sub-directory.
--
Jean Delvare
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>
To: Ben Dooks <ben-linux@fluff.org>
Cc: Uwe Kleine-Koenig <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>,
linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Ben Dooks <ben-linux@fluff.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: add i2c tree for embedded platforms
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 16:25:15 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100126162515.230bdf36@hyperion.delvare> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100126143830.GC12774@fluff.org.uk>
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 14:38:30 +0000, Ben Dooks wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 11:10:55AM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 10:20:34 +0100, Uwe Kleine-K??nig wrote:
> > > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-K??nig <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
> > > Cc: Ben Dooks <ben-linux@fluff.org>
> > > ---
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I wonder if it makes sence to split the "I2C SUBSYSTEM" entry into
> > > something like:
> > >
> > > I2C SUBSYSTEM (PC drivers, core)
> > > M: Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>
> > > L: ...
> > > W: ...
> > > T: quilt ...
> > > S: ...
> > > F: Documentation/i2c/
> > > F: drivers/i2c/
> > > F: include/linux/i2c.h
> > > F: include/linux/i2c-*.h
> > >
> > > I2C SUBSYSTEM (embedded platforms)
> > > M: Ben Dooks <ben-linux@fluff.org>
> > > L: ...
> > > W: ...
> > > T: git ...
> > > S: ...
> > > F: drivers/i2c/
> > > F: include/linux/i2c-*.h
> > >
> > > (I'm not entirely sure about the file patterns for the 2nd entry.)
> >
> > I'm not sure what value it adds, compared to having a single entry as
> > we have today. scripts/get_maintainer.pl will produce the same output,
> > won't it?
> >
> > This script (and our minds) being directory-driven, I suspect that the
> > only efficient way to split the entries would be to first move all i2c bus
> > driver for embedded platforms to a separate subdirectory. I'm leaving
> > it to Ben and the embedded community to decide whether they want to do
> > that or not.
>
> I'd much prefer to see just the one directory of i2c drivers, the
> minor point being people silly enough to load modules by explicit path
Never thought of that, but I wouldn't care. There is no good reason to
do this.
> and the second is that having all the drivers in one place makes it
> easier to update them when changing something in the core...
This doesn't seem to be a blocker either. For one thing, i2c
subsystem-wide changes tend to affect chip drivers more than bus
drivers. And even then, looking for drivers in 2 directories doesn't
seem much harder than looking into just one, especially when said 2
directories live next to each other.
So I see no objection to a mass move of all embedded/system i2c bus
drivers to a separate sub-directory.
--
Jean Delvare
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-01-26 15:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-01-25 9:20 [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: add i2c tree for embedded platforms Uwe Kleine-König
2010-01-25 9:20 ` Uwe Kleine-König
[not found] ` <1264411234-5400-1-git-send-email-u.kleine-koenig-bIcnvbaLZ9MEGnE8C9+IrQ@public.gmane.org>
2010-01-25 10:10 ` Jean Delvare
2010-01-25 10:10 ` Jean Delvare
[not found] ` <20100125111055.05ccedf2-ig7AzVSIIG7kN2dkZ6Wm7A@public.gmane.org>
2010-01-26 14:38 ` Ben Dooks
2010-01-26 14:38 ` Ben Dooks
2010-01-26 15:25 ` Jean Delvare [this message]
2010-01-26 15:25 ` Jean Delvare
2010-01-26 15:37 ` Wolfram Sang
[not found] ` <20100126153759.GF4431-bIcnvbaLZ9MEGnE8C9+IrQ@public.gmane.org>
2010-01-26 16:34 ` Jean Delvare
2010-01-26 16:34 ` Jean Delvare
2010-01-26 14:37 ` Ben Dooks
2010-01-26 14:37 ` Ben Dooks
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2010-03-01 10:38 [PATCH 3/3] " Jean Delvare
[not found] ` <20100301113840.4d6b4e7d-ig7AzVSIIG7kN2dkZ6Wm7A@public.gmane.org>
2010-03-01 11:12 ` [PATCH] " Uwe Kleine-König
2010-03-01 11:12 ` Uwe Kleine-König
[not found] ` <1267441936-4432-1-git-send-email-u.kleine-koenig-bIcnvbaLZ9MEGnE8C9+IrQ@public.gmane.org>
2010-03-22 21:03 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2010-03-22 21:03 ` Uwe Kleine-König
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20100126162515.230bdf36@hyperion.delvare \
--to=khali@linux-fr.org \
--cc=ben-linux@fluff.org \
--cc=linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.