From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wolfram Sang Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] i2c: do not enable fall back to Host Notify by default Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 19:41:01 +0100 Message-ID: <20170112184101.slxulrvreq7zl2pc@ninjato> References: <20170105045722.GA17958@dtor-ws> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170105045722.GA17958@dtor-ws> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Dmitry Torokhov Cc: Rob Herring , Benjamin Tissoires , Pali =?utf-8?B?Um9ow6Fy?= , =?utf-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBLxJlwaWXFhA==?= , Jean Delvare , Takashi Iwai , linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 08:57:22PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > Falling back unconditionally to HostNotify as primary client's interrupt > breaks some drivers which alter their functionality depending on whether > interrupt is present or not, so let's introduce a board flag telling I2C > core explicitly if we want wired interrupt or HostNotify-based one: > I2C_CLIENT_HOST_NOTIFY. > > For DT-based systems we introduce "host-notify" property that we convert > to I2C_CLIENT_HOST_NOTIFY board flag. > > Tested-by: Benjamin Tissoires > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov Applied to for-current, thanks! How do we handle driver fixes? Shall I take them via I2C to have the dependency clear? Or can they go seperately?