From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Prarit Bhargava Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] i2c algo, Add i2c-algo-i801 driver [v1] Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 13:47:46 -0400 Message-ID: <53482AC2.2060605@redhat.com> References: <1397060563-30431-1-git-send-email-prarit@redhat.com> <1397061392.5276.11.camel@x230> <53457D0D.7020805@redhat.com> <1397063381.5276.17.camel@x230> <5346EDEA.3070704@redhat.com> <1397161609.5276.32.camel@x230> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1397161609.5276.32.camel@x230> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Matthew Garrett Cc: "linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org" , "rjw@rjwysocki.net" , "seth.heasley@intel.com" , "khali@linux-fr.org" , "janet.morgan@intel.com" , "bhelgaas@google.com" , "mstowe@redhat.com" , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org On 04/10/2014 04:26 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Thu, 2014-04-10 at 15:15 -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote: >> >> On 04/09/2014 01:09 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: >>> Not really. These are an internal implementation detail, not an exported >>> interface. We try to write drivers for exported interfaces, even if >>> they're not documented. >> >> Aren't the methods the exported interface? I'm obviously missing something :) > > No. The device doesn't have a _HID(), so they're internal methods. > >>> Imagine an i2c chip with indexed register access. What stops: >>> I think I missed something in this example (and if I have this wrong, please say so). Are you saying *both* the old (pci-style) driver and my new driver (ACPI) are loaded? Or something else? > >>> CPU0 (i2c): CPU1 (ACPI): >>> SBWB register address >>> SBWB register address >>> SBRB register value >>> SBRB register value >>> >>> and CPU0 getting back the wrong value? P.