Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 29 Aug 2014 09:58:04 +0100 | From | Lee Jones <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH RESEND 0/8] i2c: Relax mandatory I2C ID table passing |
| |
On Fri, 29 Aug 2014, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > Placing this firmly back on your plate. I truly hope we don't miss > > another merge-window. > > Nope, we won't. I'll still need a week or so due to other duties.
Perfectly reasonable.
> > This patch-set has the support of some pretty > > senior kernel maintainers, so I hope acceptance shouldn't be too > > difficult. > > Cool, then they could ack it like Grant did? That surely helps.
I was talking about Grant (and Linus - I'll poke him seperately). ;)
> > As previously discussed I believe it should be okay for an I2C device > > driver _not_ supply an I2C ID table to match to. > > I agree... > > > The I2C subsystem > > should be able to match via other means, such as via OF tables. The > > blocking factor during our previous conversation was to keep > > registering via sysfs up and running. This set does that. > > ... yet it also should not cause regressions. If you fixed that, sounds > great! > > > After thinking more deeply about the problem, it occurred to me that > > any I2C device driver which uses the sysfs method and issues an > > of_match_device() would also fail their probe(). Bolted on to this > > set is a new, more generic way for these devices to match against > > either of the I2C/OF tables. > > Even better :) I am generally positive with your patchset, but need to > review the implementation. For core stuff, this simply needs more > attention.
Agree.
Thanks Wolfram.
-- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |