From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: khali@linux-fr.org (Jean Delvare) Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 06:24:48 +0000 Subject: [RFC][2.6] Additional i2c adapter flags for i2c client Message-Id: <20040317222057.79f0451f.khali@linux-fr.org> List-Id: References: <20040316154454.GA13854@kroah.com> In-Reply-To: <20040316154454.GA13854@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: lm-sensors@vger.kernel.org > This topic makes me think of something _interresting_... > > According to the tests I made on my VIA Nehemiah M10k, the vt1211 > can be handled by i2c-viapro as an smbus device (via the vt596 it > says) and via-ircc as an irda device, BUT this device can not be > binded to both drivers at the same time : when one is loaded (and > activated), the other finds no device (ENODEV I presume). (I wonder > how I should use both smbus*and* irda device)... > > Is this totally out of topic ? "Off-topic" even, yes ;) > Could a hack prevent these two drivers to be mutually exclusive? We knew of a similar problem between i2c-viapro and via686a. I didn't know that i2c-viapro and via-ircc had the same problem. And I guess that i2c-viapro and vt1211 would conflict too? Mark D. Studebaker is working on a solution for i2c-viapro and via686a. I don't know if the same solution will apply in the other cases. Since i2c-viapro is involved in all three conflicts, it promises to be damn complex... -- Jean Delvare http://www.ensicaen.ismra.fr/~delvare/