From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Trent Piepho Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] i2c: Introduce i2c listeners Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 00:08:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <20080604201334.19636f30@hyperion.delvare> <200806041727.51746.david-b@pacbell.net> <200806041914.27291.david-b@pacbell.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200806041914.27291.david-b-yBeKhBN/0LDR7s880joybQ@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: i2c-bounces-GZX6beZjE8VD60Wz+7aTrA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: i2c-bounces-GZX6beZjE8VD60Wz+7aTrA@public.gmane.org To: David Brownell Cc: Linux I2C List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 4 Jun 2008, David Brownell wrote: > On Wednesday 04 June 2008, Trent Piepho wrote: > > So scanning an I2C bus doesn't work as well as with PCI, we all know that. > > As I said, not just "scanning" but also "identifying". No need to be so pedantic, by scanning I meant probing and identifying. > PCI was designed explicitly for automatic configuration. > I2C was not. > > > > How does creating a new "i2c listeners" system solve any of these problems? > > That's an entirely different (and unrelated) question. For a thread on the subject "Introduce i2c listeners", I don't think so. When I first saw the patch, I wondered why exsting driver model couldn't handle it. It looks like Jon thought the same thing. No one ever said scanning/probing/identifying/whatever an I2C bus worked as well as it does on a bus like PCI. But I don't see why that prevents the driver model from being used. _______________________________________________ i2c mailing list i2c-GZX6beZjE8VD60Wz+7aTrA@public.gmane.org http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/i2c