From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Grant Likely Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: Allow i2c_add_numbered_adapter() to assign a bus id. Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 00:37:46 -0600 Message-ID: <20110706063746.GA26611@ponder.secretlab.ca> References: <20110627185505.19423.64214.stgit@ponder> <20110705105330.63c113c8@endymion.delvare> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110705105330.63c113c8-R0o5gVi9kd7kN2dkZ6Wm7A@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-i2c-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Jean Delvare Cc: linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Ben Dooks , linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Dirk Brandewie , Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , John Bonesio , Stephen Warren List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 10:53:30AM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > Hi Grant, >=20 > Sorry for the late answer. >=20 > On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 13:02:45 -0600, Grant Likely wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Grant Likely > > wrote: > > > Currently, if an i2c bus driver supports both static and dynamic = bus > > > ids, it needs to choose between calling i2c_add_numbered_adapter(= ) and > > > i2c_add_adapter(). =A0This patch makes i2c_add_numbered_adapter() > > > redirect to i2c_add_adapter() if the requested bus id is -1. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Grant Likely > >=20 > > Oops, forgot to edit the email before sending the patch. > >=20 > > This patch is as-yet untested other than build testing, but I want = to > > get feedback. With the move to DT on ARM, there are going to be a = lot > > more i2c bus drivers that need to support both static and dynamical= ly > > allocated busses, and it is very likely that it will be needed in t= he > > v3.1 merge window. > >=20 > > Ben/Jean, *IF* this patch tests out okay, and *IF* I get an ack fro= m > > you, it will probably need to have this commit in my devicetree/nex= t > > branch. If so, then I'll either need to commit it myself, or have = it > > put into a separate topic branch that both of us can merge into our > > trees. What is your preference. > >=20 > > John: this is the patch that I asked you to write earlier today, bu= t I > > think one of the TI folks will run into the same issue, so I wanted= to > > get it drafted and onto the list ASAP. >=20 > If this makes your life easier then I have no objection, you can go > ahead. I don't expect any conflict with my tree as there is no i2c-co= re > work going on on my end at the moment. So you can just take it in you= r > tree and merge it yourself as you see fit. >=20 > Acked-by: Jean Delvare Actually, now that I'm looking at things, I don't think there will be a conflict. Go ahead and take it via your tree so that I don't make Linus' life harder than it needs to be. g.