From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: naveenkrishna.ch@gmail.com (Naveen Krishna Ch) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 10:45:01 +0530 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] i2c-s3c2410: Add bus arbitration implementation In-Reply-To: References: <1354165536-18529-1-git-send-email-ch.naveen@samsung.com> <1354165536-18529-3-git-send-email-ch.naveen@samsung.com> <20121129163448.GA3761@sirena.org.uk> <20121201132632.GA17981@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 4 December 2012 05:41, Olof Johansson wrote: > On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Mark Brown > wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 10:14:58PM -0800, Olof Johansson wrote: >>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Simon Glass wrote: >> >>> > It was originally done separately but I think it was felt that this >>> > was overly complex. Olof can you please comment on this? >> >>> it is indeed not controller specific per se, but we are unaware of any >>> other platform/driver using it. So, it seemed reasonable to implement >>> it in the driver as long as we have only one user; if another one >>> comes along it's of course better to move it to the common i2c code. >> >>> At least that was my opinion at the time. I could be convinced >>> otherwise if someone else has strong opinions on the matter. >> >> This sort of approach is half the reason SPI ended up being so fun... I >> suspect if you look hard enough you'll find that this is just the first >> time someone tried to upstream such a scheme. This is all especially >> true for the DT bindings, even if the implementation is driver local for >> now it'd be better to define generic bindings. > > Ok, sounds like we might as well make it generic then. Naveen? Thanks for the comments. Sure, Will send an RFC soon. > > > -Olof > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in > the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- Shine bright, (: Nav :)