From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A97B6DDE03 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 08:16:07 +1100 (EST) Subject: Re: [i2c] [PATCH 0/4] Series to add device tree naming to i2c From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Jon Smirl In-Reply-To: <9e4733910712091257x4ba5e07aue55934fb6898aa2d@mail.gmail.com> References: <20071203212032.23543.3453.stgit@terra.home> <9e4733910712091224mcb43f0ci69f578d221505ba7@mail.gmail.com> <1197233208.6563.14.camel@pasglop> <9e4733910712091257x4ba5e07aue55934fb6898aa2d@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 08:13:19 +1100 Message-Id: <1197234799.6563.19.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: Jean Delvare , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, i2c@lm-sensors.org Reply-To: benh@kernel.crashing.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Sun, 2007-12-09 at 15:57 -0500, Jon Smirl wrote: > > Are there technical concerns with this series? The white space can be > fixed in a few minutes. > > Adding a tag to differentiate matching types has implications that are > broader than just i2c. Shouldn't we do this first with the existing > scheme and then change the tagging process with later patches? No, we should decide on what to do with the tagging process (or not do) first, don't you think ? (If we need a tagging process, Scott had a concern but it might be moot, let's discuss that first). Ben.