Re: [PATH 0/3] isp1301 changes

[Jean Delvare <khali-PUYAD+kWke1g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org>]

On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 5:38 PM, Felipe Balbi
<felipebalbi-Rn4VEauK+AKRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 5:28 PM, Jean Delvare <khali-PUYAD+kWke1g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>  > On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 14:47:14 +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>  >  > Hi Jean,
>  >  >
>  >  > I have a new approach for the isp1301 driver, took your idea
>  >  > of adding a new irq_flags member to i2c_boardinfo and i2c_client.
>  >
>  >  I said we could do this _if_ many drivers needed this field. I didn't
>  >  mean to do it right now... So far I only know of the isp1301 driver
>  >  which would need this. And at any rate I'd like to hear David's opinion
>  >  before adding a new field to the core i2c structures.
>
>  Ok, so I'll prepare other patch based on addind include/i2c/isp1301_omap.h with
>  struct isp1301_platform_data.

Would be better, yes. If we finally decide to add an irq_flags field to
the i2c core structures, we'll update the isp1301 driver accordingly.

>  But still, it makes really much sense adding this field cuz the
>  probability of having different irq flags on different boards is quite
>  high. Also, a driver shouldn't be conditional to an architecture. I
>  mean, isp1301 can be used with any arch, not only with omap. So as
>  much as we can make it platform independent as better driver we get.

I agree that it would be great if the isp1301 driver was arch-neutral.
But I fail to see how this is related to adding an irq_flags field to
struct i2c_board_info and struct i2c_client or not.

-- 
Jean Delvare

_______________________________________________
i2c mailing list
i2c-GZX6beZjE8VD60Wz+7aTrA@public.gmane.org
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/i2c