Re: N800 problems with MMC, LM8323 on current linux-omap git head

[Riku Voipio <riku.voipio@iki.fi>]

On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 07:52:44AM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:47:43 +0300, Riku Voipio <riku.voipio@iki.fi> wrote:
> 
> > Hmm. I think it would be better to avoid calling the probe
> > in first place. git diff made the attached patch look more
> > confusing than it actually is. Personally I'd eliminate
> > all ifdefs from those i2c_board_info structs.

> I did the same thing before, but then we're gonna start adding
> several i2c_board_info for different hw. I mean, we should
> just reuse the code and the driver should know when the device
> is not present and stop probing without any problems to the rest
> of the system.

If the different hw has different devices on the i2c bus, then
different i2c_board_info struct should be provided. IIRC i2c_board_info
is expected to provide a accurate picture of what i2c devices is
connected to the bus. This has been used as a argument to remove detection
code from .probe functions.

To all the confused i2c list readers, the topic is about should we
split n800_i2c_board_info_2 [0] to n800 and n810 specific structs[1]
or make the lm8323 configure to err out earlier[2].

[0] http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/tmlind/linux-omap-2.6.git;a=blob;f=arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-n800.c;h=ae85c2c60534820856c8bb0e019be29f2375470b;hb=HEAD#l645
[1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.omap/9562
[2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.omap/9522


"rm -rf" only sounds scary if you don't have backups