All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
To: Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: Make I2C ID tables non-mandatory for DT'ed and/or ACPI'ed devices
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2014 14:26:19 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140602132619.GA4146@lee--X1> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140602123851.GB2654@katana>

On Mon, 02 Jun 2014, Wolfram Sang wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 02:16:59PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Right, I read the function which provides the functionality, but my
> > >> point is; I don't think my patch changes the semantics in a way which
> > >> would adversely affect this option.  If you think that it does, can you
> > >> specify how please?
> > >
> > > Currently, if a driver would be DT only and does not provide a seperate
> > > i2c_device_id table, then the driver is unusable with method 4. I don't
> > > like to have some drivers being capable of it and some not.
> > >
> > >> Does the sysfs method create a i2c_device_id table?  If not, how does
> > >> it probe successfully pre-patch?
> > >
> > > The sysfs method creates a device. Its name is matched against
> > > i2c_device_ids only since it does not have a node pointer for DT to be
> > > matched against.
> > 
> > Is this really so useful on embedded systems?
> 
> Well, this feature is at least nice with embedded:
> 
> ---
> 
> * You are developing a driver on a test board, where you soldered the I2C
>   device yourself.
> 
> ---
> 
> Or during HW bringup, you this or that driver for a device (out-of-tree
> vs. in-kernel), and hey, the RTC even has an EEPROM at another address,
> let's try. Such things are the use cases I have mostly seen and those
> customers liked it.
> 
> The problem is that we are talking about matching against I2C slave
> drivers. I can't see a line between embedded and non-embedded when it
> comes to slaves. They are just slaves and could be on any hardware.
> Keeping the bigger picture in mind, IMO it is cumbersome if some drivers
> support user-space instantiation and some not.
> 
> Though, I wouldn't mind if compatible entries could be passed to the
> 'new_device' file, in addition to i2c_device_ids. Yet, this needs some
> extra handling I haven't found the time for, yet.

Actually, I'm just about to submit a new set.

Hopefully we cover some bases.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: lee.jones@linaro.org (Lee Jones)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] i2c: Make I2C ID tables non-mandatory for DT'ed and/or ACPI'ed devices
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2014 14:26:19 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140602132619.GA4146@lee--X1> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140602123851.GB2654@katana>

On Mon, 02 Jun 2014, Wolfram Sang wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 02:16:59PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Right, I read the function which provides the functionality, but my
> > >> point is; I don't think my patch changes the semantics in a way which
> > >> would adversely affect this option.  If you think that it does, can you
> > >> specify how please?
> > >
> > > Currently, if a driver would be DT only and does not provide a seperate
> > > i2c_device_id table, then the driver is unusable with method 4. I don't
> > > like to have some drivers being capable of it and some not.
> > >
> > >> Does the sysfs method create a i2c_device_id table?  If not, how does
> > >> it probe successfully pre-patch?
> > >
> > > The sysfs method creates a device. Its name is matched against
> > > i2c_device_ids only since it does not have a node pointer for DT to be
> > > matched against.
> > 
> > Is this really so useful on embedded systems?
> 
> Well, this feature is at least nice with embedded:
> 
> ---
> 
> * You are developing a driver on a test board, where you soldered the I2C
>   device yourself.
> 
> ---
> 
> Or during HW bringup, you this or that driver for a device (out-of-tree
> vs. in-kernel), and hey, the RTC even has an EEPROM at another address,
> let's try. Such things are the use cases I have mostly seen and those
> customers liked it.
> 
> The problem is that we are talking about matching against I2C slave
> drivers. I can't see a line between embedded and non-embedded when it
> comes to slaves. They are just slaves and could be on any hardware.
> Keeping the bigger picture in mind, IMO it is cumbersome if some drivers
> support user-space instantiation and some not.
> 
> Though, I wouldn't mind if compatible entries could be passed to the
> 'new_device' file, in addition to i2c_device_ids. Yet, this needs some
> extra handling I haven't found the time for, yet.

Actually, I'm just about to submit a new set.

Hopefully we cover some bases.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

  parent reply	other threads:[~2014-06-02 13:26 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 45+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-05-30 12:26 [PATCH 0/{1,1}] i2c: Make I2C ID tables non-mandatory for DT/ACPI Lee Jones
2014-05-30 12:26 ` Lee Jones
2014-05-30 12:26 ` Lee Jones
2014-05-30 12:26 ` [PATCH] i2c: Make I2C ID tables non-mandatory for DT'ed and/or ACPI'ed devices Lee Jones
2014-05-30 12:26   ` Lee Jones
2014-05-30 12:36   ` Wolfram Sang
2014-05-30 12:36     ` Wolfram Sang
2014-05-30 12:55     ` Lee Jones
2014-05-30 12:55       ` Lee Jones
2014-05-30 12:55       ` Lee Jones
2014-05-30 13:34     ` Lee Jones
2014-05-30 13:34       ` Lee Jones
2014-05-30 13:34       ` Lee Jones
2014-05-30 17:48       ` Wolfram Sang
2014-05-30 17:48         ` Wolfram Sang
2014-05-30 17:48         ` Wolfram Sang
2014-05-30 19:25         ` Lee Jones
2014-05-30 19:25           ` Lee Jones
2014-05-31 13:48           ` Wolfram Sang
2014-05-31 13:48             ` Wolfram Sang
2014-05-31 13:48             ` Wolfram Sang
2014-06-02 12:16             ` Linus Walleij
2014-06-02 12:16               ` Linus Walleij
     [not found]               ` <CACRpkdZvyfA0aaJe3YuevXfA2pTZLRPZ3mQpitL6qD7=qE0Xyg-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
2014-06-02 12:38                 ` Wolfram Sang
2014-06-02 12:38                   ` Wolfram Sang
2014-06-02 12:38                   ` Wolfram Sang
2014-06-02 13:26                   ` Linus Walleij
2014-06-02 13:26                     ` Linus Walleij
2014-06-02 13:26                   ` Lee Jones [this message]
2014-06-02 13:26                     ` Lee Jones
2014-06-02 14:29                 ` Michael Lawnick
2014-06-02 14:29                   ` Michael Lawnick
2014-06-02 14:29                   ` Michael Lawnick
2014-06-03 11:18                   ` Linus Walleij
2014-06-03 11:18                     ` Linus Walleij
2014-06-04  6:09                     ` Michael Lawnick
2014-06-04  6:09                       ` Michael Lawnick
     [not found]                       ` <538EB81B.3090807-Mmb7MZpHnFY@public.gmane.org>
2014-06-12  7:55                         ` Linus Walleij
2014-06-12  7:55                           ` Linus Walleij
2014-06-12  7:55                           ` Linus Walleij
     [not found]                           ` <CACRpkda3bL=y3Dmkf59LT97Liep=XEzgE3P-YngLeD_w1qcAzQ-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
2014-06-12  9:28                             ` Michael Lawnick
2014-06-12  9:28                               ` Michael Lawnick
2014-06-12  9:28                               ` Michael Lawnick
2014-05-30 12:26 ` Lee Jones
2014-05-30 12:26   ` Lee Jones

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=20140602132619.GA4146@lee--X1 \
    --to=lee.jones@linaro.org \
    --cc=grant.likely@linaro.org \
    --cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=wsa@the-dreams.de \
    /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.