From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
To: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>,
Jeremy Cline <jeremy@jcline.org>,
Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@gmx.de>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>,
"Peter Meerwald-Stadler" <pmeerw@pmeerw.net>,
Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>,
Lars Kellogg-Stedman <lars@oddbit.com>,
Steven Presser <steve@pressers.name>, <linux-iio@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] iio: accel: bmc150: Check for a second ACPI device for BOSC0200
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 11:54:13 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171205115413.00007e64@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171205113801.GU22431@lahna.fi.intel.com>
On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 13:38:01 +0200
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 11:27:38AM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > Why does it not make sense to just create them all from the ACPI/I2C core?
>
> How do you know in ACPI/I2C core what is the right thing to do? Is it a
> single device, like EEPROM with multiple addresses, or is it multiple
> completely separate devices like in case of many sensors?
Fine, though this seems like a flaw in the ACPI description as it
isn't possible to tell the difference. Why it allows on ACPI description
for multiple devices in one ACPI device is beyond me...
More ACPI specific driver code that may eventually end up in every
driver. Goody. Perhaps we can define a helper function to at least
make this trivial and minimize the burden. Ultimately if this happens
enough we could probably figure out how to move it into the I2C core
entirely - flag in the i2c_driver structure for example.
Jonathan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-12-05 11:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20171129223016.17848-1-jeremy@jcline.org>
2017-11-29 22:31 ` [PATCH 1/2] iio: accel: bmc150: Move struct definitions into the header Jeremy Cline
2017-11-29 22:31 ` [PATCH 2/2] iio: accel: bmc150: Check for a second ACPI device for BOSC0200 Jeremy Cline
2017-12-02 12:19 ` Jonathan Cameron
2017-12-04 9:58 ` Mika Westerberg
2017-12-04 10:29 ` Hans de Goede
2017-12-04 10:41 ` Mika Westerberg
2017-12-05 11:27 ` Jonathan Cameron
2017-12-05 11:38 ` Mika Westerberg
2017-12-05 11:54 ` Jonathan Cameron [this message]
2017-12-04 18:58 ` Jeremy Cline
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20171205115413.00007e64@huawei.com \
--to=jonathan.cameron@huawei.com \
--cc=hdegoede@redhat.com \
--cc=jeremy@jcline.org \
--cc=jic23@kernel.org \
--cc=knaack.h@gmx.de \
--cc=lars@metafoo.de \
--cc=lars@oddbit.com \
--cc=linux-iio@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com \
--cc=pmeerw@pmeerw.net \
--cc=steve@pressers.name \
--cc=wsa@the-dreams.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox