Re: [PATCH 1/4] i2c: add FUNC flag for slave capabilities

["Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig-bIcnvbaLZ9MEGnE8C9+IrQ@public.gmane.org>]

Hello Wolfram,

On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 10:22:16AM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 01:37:44PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 02:40:02PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > > From: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas-jBu1N2QxHDJrcw3mvpCnnVaTQe2KTcn/@public.gmane.org>
> > > 
> > > So users can check in advance if there is slave support.
> > I wonder if the core should check if .{,un}reg_slave is != NULL and
> > automatically set this bit accordingly.
> 
> I thought about this, too, but decided against it. Maybe some driver
> doesn't want to make its slave interface public because it is
> specialized for one use-case only (thinking ECs here)? Also, doing it
Hmm, I'd not say this is a valid reason. Sounds like policy in the
kernel?!

Does the framework check for the slave support flag before binding a
slave to the controler? I assume that not, but wonder if it should.

> would be a little inconsistent, since we could do the same for
> I2C_FUNC_I2C when master_xfer is populated. So, let's start simple I'd
> say.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |