All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: khali@linux-fr.org (Jean Delvare)
To: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>, Michael Hunold <hunold@convergence.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sensors@Stimpy.netroedge.com
Subject: [RFC][2.6] Additional i2c adapter flags for i2c client
Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 06:24:48 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040316201426.1d01f1d3.khali@linux-fr.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040316154454.GA13854@kroah.com>

> Yeah, right now it's up to the chip drivers to be honest.  If you want
> to implement a change to do this instead, I'll be glad to apply it.

Does this mean that i2c_client would get an additional ".class" struct
element, of the same nature of the ".class" struct element of
i2c_adapter?

This sounds interesting. That way, the "compatibility" check would move
down to i2c-core and neither the bus drivers nor the chip drivers would
have to care (apart from defining this .class element). Sounds really
nice indeed.

I guess that chip drivers would be allowed to define only one class
while adapters could possibly define more than one?

We also would want to introduce an I2C_ADAP_CLASS_ANY define, which
would be what the eeprom driver would use, for example (since it can be
hosted on any kind of bus). Generic bus drivers such as i2c-parport
would also use I2C_ADAP_CLASS_ANY, since the nature of the hosted chips
is unknown.

Having clients define a class sounds also interesting from a
user-space's point of view. If we would export this information through
sysfs for example, programs such as "sensors" could limit their work to
chips of the correct class (I2C_ADAP_CLASS_SMBUS at the moment, but a
renaming is planned).

-- 
Jean Delvare
http://www.ensicaen.ismra.fr/~delvare/

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>
To: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>, Michael Hunold <hunold@convergence.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sensors@Stimpy.netroedge.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][2.6] Additional i2c adapter flags for i2c client isolation
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 20:14:26 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040316201426.1d01f1d3.khali@linux-fr.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040316154454.GA13854@kroah.com>

> Yeah, right now it's up to the chip drivers to be honest.  If you want
> to implement a change to do this instead, I'll be glad to apply it.

Does this mean that i2c_client would get an additional ".class" struct
element, of the same nature of the ".class" struct element of
i2c_adapter?

This sounds interesting. That way, the "compatibility" check would move
down to i2c-core and neither the bus drivers nor the chip drivers would
have to care (apart from defining this .class element). Sounds really
nice indeed.

I guess that chip drivers would be allowed to define only one class
while adapters could possibly define more than one?

We also would want to introduce an I2C_ADAP_CLASS_ANY define, which
would be what the eeprom driver would use, for example (since it can be
hosted on any kind of bus). Generic bus drivers such as i2c-parport
would also use I2C_ADAP_CLASS_ANY, since the nature of the hosted chips
is unknown.

Having clients define a class sounds also interesting from a
user-space's point of view. If we would export this information through
sysfs for example, programs such as "sensors" could limit their work to
chips of the correct class (I2C_ADAP_CLASS_SMBUS at the moment, but a
renaming is planned).

-- 
Jean Delvare
http://www.ensicaen.ismra.fr/~delvare/

  reply	other threads:[~2005-05-19  6:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-03-16  9:25 [RFC][2.6] Additional i2c adapter flags for i2c client isolation Michael Hunold
2004-03-16 13:26 ` Adrian Cox
2004-03-16 14:23   ` Michael Hunold
2004-03-16 15:44 ` Greg KH
2005-05-19  6:24   ` Greg KH
2004-03-16 19:14   ` Jean Delvare [this message]
2005-05-19  6:24     ` [RFC][2.6] Additional i2c adapter flags for i2c client Jean Delvare
2004-03-16 19:53     ` [RFC][2.6] Additional i2c adapter flags for i2c client isolation Greg KH
2005-05-19  6:24       ` Greg KH
2004-03-17  9:17       ` Jean Delvare
2005-05-19  6:24         ` Jean Delvare
2004-03-17 17:42         ` Greg KH
2005-05-19  6:24           ` Greg KH
2004-03-17 20:05           ` Jean Delvare
2005-05-19  6:24             ` [RFC][2.6] Additional i2c adapter flags for i2c client Jean Delvare
2004-03-17 23:11             ` [RFC][2.6] Additional i2c adapter flags for i2c client isolation Greg KH
2005-05-19  6:24               ` Greg KH
2004-03-18 15:56   ` Michael Hunold
2005-05-19  6:24     ` Michael Hunold
2005-05-19  6:24   ` [RFC][2.6] Additional i2c adapter flags for i2c client Jean Delvare

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20040316201426.1d01f1d3.khali@linux-fr.org \
    --to=khali@linux-fr.org \
    --cc=greg@kroah.com \
    --cc=hunold@convergence.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sensors@Stimpy.netroedge.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.