From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: wsa@the-dreams.de (Wolfram Sang) Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 15:48:06 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] i2c: Make I2C ID tables non-mandatory for DT'ed and/or ACPI'ed devices In-Reply-To: <20140530192516.GA4319@lee--X1> References: <1401452797-29521-1-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <1401452797-29521-2-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <20140530123656.GC2742@katana> <20140530133405.GB29731@lee--X1> <20140530174800.GA4917@katana> <20140530192516.GA4319@lee--X1> Message-ID: <20140531134805.GA3287@katana> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org > 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. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: