Re: [PATCH] i2c: skip address detection if provided in board_info

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

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 08:54:18 -0700, Jacob Pan wrote:
> Jean Delvare Wed, 13 Oct 2010 09:26:54 +0200
> >Mixed cases aren't supported, because it is expected that all devices
> >are declared as platform data, or none is. This seems to work OK so far
> >for everybody. If it doesn't work for you, please explain why, in
> >details.
>
> it works for us in practice, at least for today. perhaps I am just playing
> devil's advocate, but also for the completeness of the logic for future
> use.

OK, thanks for clarifying. I do not expect this case to ever happen.
But if it ever does, then feel free to come back to me with all the
details and we'll discuss it again. I don't think it makes sense to add
support for a case which doesn't exist, because it's impossible to
figure out the best way to fix it until we actually see it.

> >Note though that there is some level of granularity because the adapter
> >class is a bitfield. So it is possible to declare all I2C devices as
> >platform data except the hardware monitoring devices, for example, and
> >set adapter class = I2C_CLASS_HWMON.
> >
> >There aren't many bits really used, BTW, mostly I2C_CLASS_HWMON and
> >I2C_CLASS_SPD, and the trend is to remove the unused class flags rather
> >than to add new ones. However, if you need a new I2C_CLASS flag, this
> >can certainly be done.
> 
> Can we make an explicit bit I2C_CLASS_NO_DETECT so that is is more
> explicit? It also allows co-existance with other flags so that we can
> handle mixed cases?

And what exactly would this bit do?

Confused.

-- 
Jean Delvare