From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Grant Likely" Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3]: Sparc OF I2C support. Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 10:44:33 -0600 Message-ID: References: <20080821.001012.265401427.davem@davemloft.net> <20080821163256.GC15669@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net> <20080821.142134.127315039.davem@davemloft.net> <48ADDF86.2040200@freescale.com> <9e4733910808211645p27ff2c6ci6dba6f363e9ece15@mail.gmail.com> <9e4733910808211939s24f1b2f0tc470aaf3831ebcca@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <9e4733910808211939s24f1b2f0tc470aaf3831ebcca@mail.gmail.com> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: sparclinux-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jon Smirl Cc: Scott Wood , sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, devicetree-discuss@ozlabs.org, paulus@samba.org, David Miller List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 8:39 PM, Jon Smirl wrote: > On 8/21/08, Grant Likely wrote: >> It was over a year ago when support for i2c devices in the device tree >> was merged. > > I see, the old support needed the drivers to be built-in. The newer > code dynamically loads the correct i2c driver and set its parameters. > > Did the old code use anything besides compatible? It would have been > using the older i2c system that probed for the address. I think you're confusing binding with implementation. The binding is the layout of data in the device tree. The implementation uses that data. Your right that the current implementation is new, but it replaces older implementation that uses the same binding. g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.