Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
From:   Sean O'Brien <seobrien@chromium.org>
To:     Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org>
Cc:     Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com>,
        linux-input@vger.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Wei-Ning Huang <wnhuang@google.com>,
        Sean O'Brien <seobrien@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] HID: google: add google vivaldi HID driver
Date:   Wed, 26 Aug 2020 18:51:43 -0700
Message-Id: <20200827015143.57364-1-seobrien@chromium.org>
In-Reply-To: <nycvar.YFH.7.76.2008261311550.27422@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
References: <nycvar.YFH.7.76.2008261311550.27422@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

> I actually believe we should follow the standard convention here, and have
> just one hid-<vendor> driver for all google products. Currently we have
> hid-google-hammer, and this would add hid-google-vivaldi. Would you (or
> Wei-Ning, CCing here) object on merging these two together?

I'm a bit reluctant to merge them.  Partly because I'm not familiar with
the hid-google-hammer driver, but mostly because this driver is intended
to handle non-google products which will use a google-defined usage code.
Perhaps I should drop "google" from the driver name?

Thanks,
Sean O'Brien