Re: [PATCH] i2c: reorganize muxes to a standard pattern

[Wolfram Sang <w.sang-bIcnvbaLZ9MEGnE8C9+IrQ@public.gmane.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1665 bytes --]

On Sat, Jan 07, 2012 at 03:38:20PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 12:57:51 +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 10:58:30 +0100, Peter Korsgaard wrote:
> > > >>>>> "Wolfram" == Wolfram Sang <w.sang-bIcnvbaLZ9MEGnE8C9+IrQ@public.gmane.org> writes:
> > > 
> > >  >> > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.i2c/7171/focus=7244
> > >  >> 
> > >  >> Ah, yes, that's the discussion I was looking for, thanks for digging it
> > >  >> out. My point wasn't totally wrong back then, but Wolfram's is simply
> > >  >> better, I admit.
> > > 
> > >  Wolfram> I agree :) Okay, so I'll update the documentation as well. What about
> > >  Wolfram> include/linux/gpio-i2cmux.h and its users? I'd like consistency, but
> > >  Wolfram> renaming header files is not too nice...
> > > 
> > > Indeed. If we were to rename it we should also rename struct
> > > gpio_i2cmux_platform_data.
> > > 
> > > I don't feel strongly about it - It will break for existing users, but
> > > there's probably not too many of those. Your call.
> > 
> > I see exactly 1 user of <linux/gpio-i2cmux.h> in the upstream kernel
> > tree, and that is gpio-i2cmux itself. So I'd say no big deal renaming
> > it, and actually if we intend to rename header files and/or structures,
> > the sooner the better.
> 
> Wolfram, Peter, any progress here? I think Wolfram was supposed to send
> an updated patch but I did not receive anything.

-EBUSY :(

It *is* on my todo-list, though...

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Wolfram Sang                |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]