From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lee Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/19] i2c-nomadik: Register sub-devices when passed via Device Tree Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 09:22:12 +0100 Message-ID: <20120914082210.GD3374@gmail.com> References: <1347016499-29354-1-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <1347016499-29354-13-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-i2c-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Linus Walleij Cc: linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, STEricsson_nomadik_linux-nkJGhpqTU55BDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org, linus.walleij-0IS4wlFg1OjSUeElwK9/Pw@public.gmane.org, arnd-r2nGTMty4D4@public.gmane.org, linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Wolfram Sang List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 04:42:36AM -0700, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Lee Jones wrot= e: >=20 > > Each I2C device can be correctly probed already using Device Tree, > > but the sub-devices still have to be registered by calls to > > i2c_register_board_info(). After this patch, each sub-device can > > be registered directly from Device Tree instead, removing the > > requirement for the aforementioned calls from platform code. > > > > CC: linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org > > CC: Wolfram Sang > > Signed-off-by: Lee Jones >=20 > The patch as such is fine. > Acked-by: Linus Walleij >=20 > ...but there will be merge issues (of the type I'm > discussing with Arnd in another thread). >=20 > > --- > > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-nomadik.c | 4 ++++ > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-nomadik.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/= i2c-nomadik.c > > index 5d1a970..01231c2 100644 > > --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-nomadik.c > > +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-nomadik.c > > @@ -26,6 +26,7 @@ > > #include > > #include > > #include > > +#include >=20 > This is clearly dependent on the other patches to I2C to > be merged first (the include above is not yet there in > linux-next even), so this patch should go into Wolfram's > tree right? Else we have to rip out all the patches to the > I2C driver from his tree and funnel it all through ARM SoC. >=20 > With the changes to the device tree itself being dependent > on this, they should thus also go through the I2C tree. >=20 > But they may be heavily dependent on the other DT > changes you've done, so they cannot be applied to > Wolfram's tree... >=20 > And thus you may need to hold this change off > until the I2C changes are upstream, or start creating > cross-tree dependencies. >=20 > Maybe I shouldn't worry about these things and just > ACK stuff, but I have such problems with cross-tree > merges myself so just trying to be helpful :-/ If I send all my stuff though arm-soc, then I have no dependencies at all. All my patches are based on the latest -rc. It seems a little silly to split them all up and push them through lots of different trees. That way we're bound to increase the chances of merge conflicts surely? --=20 Lee Jones Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead Linaro.org =E2=94=82 Open source software for ARM SoCs =46ollow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog