From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jean Delvare Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: skip address detection if provided in board_info Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 18:07:51 +0200 Message-ID: <20101013180751.2d37c513@endymion.delvare> References: <1286838635-16474-1-git-send-email-jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com> <20101012092822.6f4e4aa5@endymion.delvare> <20101012162140.429b03b3@feng-i7> <20101012104707.3318511d@endymion.delvare> <20101012173028.638cd3ae@po-laptop> <20101012133425.490e3c4c@endymion.delvare> <20101012110140.00003391@unknown> <20101013092654.7e26fa00@endymion.delvare> <20101013085418.00003979@unknown> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20101013085418.00003979@unknown> Sender: linux-i2c-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Jacob Pan Cc: Feng Tang , i2c list , Ben Dooks List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.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