Re: i2c: slave support framework improvements

[Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 779 bytes --]

Hi Peter,

> If you really have a separate device on the bus with the same address
> that you want to add slave support for, then there really is a conflict,
> and the kernel knows it.

We still have a disagreement about "the kernel knows it". The kernel
knows it only in one case, i.e. when you are able to describe all
devices on the bus.

What about this compromise: We keep the current scheme, but print a
warning when the kernel notices a slave device has the same address
which is already claimed by a client driver. This will let most users
know about the conflict but it will not hurt the debugging-via-loopback
case, since people know what they are doing and will happily ignore it.

If you can agree to that, I'll cook up a patch later this week.

Thanks,

   Wolfram


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]