From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ppsw-51.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.151]:59711 "EHLO ppsw-51.csi.cam.ac.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758054Ab2EOIkn (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 May 2012 04:40:43 -0400 Message-ID: <4FB2168A.2050206@cam.ac.uk> Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 09:40:42 +0100 From: Jonathan Cameron MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lars-Peter Clausen CC: Jonathan Cameron , "linux-iio@vger.kernel.org" , "Hennerich, Michael" Subject: Re: IIO include folder hierarchy References: <4FB21652.9070809@metafoo.de> In-Reply-To: <4FB21652.9070809@metafoo.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: linux-iio-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-iio@vger.kernel.org On 5/15/2012 9:39 AM, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote: > Hi, > > I was just preparing a patch to move the DAC drivers out of staging. And I'm > wondering if we want to use a flat hierarchy in the IIO include folder, i.e > put all includes in toplevel folder. Or if we want individual subfolders for > the different device classes (e.g. include/linux/iio/dac/ in this case). I'd > opt for the later since I fear that things would get quite messy over time > in the toplevel folder. Subfolders sounds sensible to me. > > Thanks, > - Lars > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html