Re: [PATCH 0/8] HID-Sensor: v2

[Jonathan Cameron <jic23@cam.ac.uk>]

On 6/14/2012 2:25 PM, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2012, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>
>>> As this is however a staging driver (and depends on IIO, which is a
>>> staging infrastructure), I suggest you resend the patch to staging
>>> maintainers so that it gets applied and we can work on polishing the
>>> driver there.
>>
>>> Also, what are the plans regarding moving IIO out of staging, please?
>> The core is out of staging as of the current cycle.
>
> Ah, you are right, I missed that this has already happened.
>
>> Drivers are moving out whenever someone has time to take a look at each
>> one and clean up any loose ends.  A couple went with the last merge
>> window, lots more a queued up for the next one.
>>
>> Generally any new drivers shouldn't go into staging but directly
>> into drivers/iio.
>
> For hid sensors I'd probably prefer drivers/hid though.
There's some pretty strong moves to clasify drivers by function not
by 'bus' (which is kind of what hid is I guess?)

I do wonder if this driver would work better as an mfd type device
with the sensor specific bits each having their own module?

Honestly I've never been much of a stickler for where things are as
long as someone is happy to look after them.
>
>> Sorry for my lack of responses on this revised version, been a busy
>> week and it's a fairly big review to do.
>
> Thanks,
>