From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Laurent Pinchart Subject: Re: i2c: introduce i2c helper i2c_find_client_by_name() Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 13:35:51 +0200 Message-ID: <4066449.W80oPjbVFF@avalon> References: <20130606183346.GA13259@bingao-desk1.fm.intel.com> <20130712110047.GA3135@katana> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-i2c-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Andy Shevchenko Cc: Wolfram Sang , Mark Brown , Bin Gao , linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, "linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org Hi Andy, On Friday 12 July 2013 14:29:16 Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote: > >> Briefly looking into ACPI tables we have and mechanisms that we can > >> use in ACPI case, I doubt we may apply all the ideas, probably some of > >> them, though I didn't get yet where to read about in details. What I > >> could say now is that the patch provided by Bin Gao is definitely no > >> go. > > > > Laurent explained to me what V4L did and now does. It used to be the way > > tha V4L drivers did register I2C slaves according to platform_data. Now, > > with DT the slaves get instanciated earlier, so they now use notifiers > > to know when the slaves are in place. Something like this should > > probably be done here, too, instead of unregistering and re-registering. > > Yes, seems right way to go. > I think ACPI case can use V4L2 async API somehow, though it has its > own event model. > I'll talk to Sakari Ailus to sync. Do you have any pointer to the relevant parts of the ACPI specification ? -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart