From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-ID: <4FD9E999.4010103@cam.ac.uk> Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 14:39:37 +0100 From: Jonathan Cameron MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jiri Kosina CC: srinivas pandruvada , linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, Jonathan Cameron Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] HID-Sensor: v2 References: <1339293198-10404-1-git-send-email-srinivas.pandruvada@intel.com> <4FD9E33E.8070000@cam.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed List-ID: 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, >