Re: [PATCH v2] i2c: change the id to let the i2c-gpio work

[Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre-AIFe0yeh4nAAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>]

On 10/15/2012 10:26 AM, Bo Shen :
> Hi Nicolas,
> 
> On 10/15/2012 16:12, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
>> On 10/15/2012 04:09 AM, Bo Shen :
>>> Hi Joachim Eastwood,
>>>
>>> On 10/13/2012 1:42, Joachim Eastwood wrote:
>>>> Hi Bo Shen,
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Bo Shen <voice.shen-AIFe0yeh4nAAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>>>> The i2c-gpio driver will turn the platform device ID to busnum.
>>>>> When using platfrom device ID as -1, it means dynamically assigned
>>>>> the busnum. When writing code, we need to make sure the busnum,
>>>>> and call i2c_register_board_info(int busnum, ...) to register device
>>>>> if using -1, we do not know the value of busnum.
>>>>>
>>>>> In order to solve this issue, set the platform device ID as a fix
>>>>> number
>>>>> Here using 0 to match the busnum used in i2c_regsiter_board_info().
>>>>
>>>> I have been bitten by this myself on RM9200.
>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Bo Shen <voice.shen-AIFe0yeh4nAAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> Change since v1
>>>>>     Make the commit message more clear
>>>>> ---
>>>>>    arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9260_devices.c |    2 +-
>>>>
>>>> This pattern exist in at91rm9200_devices.c, at91sam9261_devices.c,
>>>> at91sam9263_devices.c and at91sam9rl_devices.c you might want to fix
>>>> them as well.
>>>
>>> Thanks for your information.
>>> After I test these boards, I will send patches to fix them, while not in
>>> this patch.
>>
>> I am in favor of doing a comprehensive patch series that covers all
>> aspects of this issue:
>> - each boards
>> - both i2c-gpio and i2c-at91 cases
> 
> May I need to submit this patch as a series? One patch for one board,
> and cover i2c-gpio and i2c-at91 cases.
> e.g:
> [patch 1/x] i2c: change id to let i2c-gpio work on at91rm200ek
> [patch 2/x] i2c: change id to let i2c-gpio work on at91sam9261ek
> ...
> 
> or
> 
> Just one patch, cover all these boards and i2c-gpio and i2c-at91?

Neither of the altenatives ;-)
I would have done:
1 for i2c-gpio covering all boards impacted
1 for i2c-at91 covering all boards impacted...

Bye,
-- 
Nicolas Ferre