From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Brownell Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/8] Add PCA9536 4 bit I2C GPIO extender support to the pca9539 GPIO driver Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 03:49:41 -0800 Message-ID: <200801310349.41945.david-b@pacbell.net> References: <200801310248.41076.david-b@pacbell.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: i2c-bounces-GZX6beZjE8VD60Wz+7aTrA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: i2c-bounces-GZX6beZjE8VD60Wz+7aTrA@public.gmane.org To: Guennadi Liakhovetski Cc: video4linux-list-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, i2c-GZX6beZjE8VD60Wz+7aTrA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org On Thursday 31 January 2008, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > = > > > So, actually, using my descriptor array is nearer to what it eventual= ly = > > > should become, I think. Under 2.6.26 you'd also, probably, just have = a = > > > "struct i2c_device_id *" member in your pca953x_chip. > > = > > Well, I was also pointing out that all you need is the number of GPIOs; > > no need to save any ID struct at all. =A0These chips are VERY similar. > = > Ok, agreed, let's remove it then. For now I just use an array of structs = > similar to i2c_device_id only to avoid a long sequence of strcmp calls in = > probe() and compare the name in a loop. Is this alright? Sure; it's your call on most such details, I just wanted clean patches. _______________________________________________ i2c mailing list i2c-GZX6beZjE8VD60Wz+7aTrA@public.gmane.org http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/i2c