[PATCH] rtc-pcf8563: Add device ids table

[PATCH] rtc-pcf8563: Add device ids table

[Laurent Pinchart]

Hi,

here's a patch against 2.6.25-rc8-mm2 that adds support for device tree names
to the rtc-pcf8563 driver.

Is the new-style driver conversion patch in 2.6.25-rc8-mm2 scheduled for
2.6.26 ?

--

This patch adds support for device tree names via the i2c mod alias mechanism
to the rtc-pcf8563 driver.

Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurentp@cse-semaphore.com>
---
 drivers/rtc/rtc-pcf8563.c |    8 ++++++++
 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-pcf8563.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-pcf8563.c
index a1e2f39..9667a3f 100644
--- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-pcf8563.c
+++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-pcf8563.c
@@ -299,12 +299,20 @@ static int pcf8563_remove(struct i2c_client *client)
 	return 0;
 }
 
+static struct i2c_device_id pcf8563_id[] = {
+	{ "pcf8563", 0 },
+	{ "rtc8564", 0 },
+	{},
+};
+MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, pcf8563_id);
+
 static struct i2c_driver pcf8563_driver = {
 	.driver		= {
 		.name	= "rtc-pcf8563",
 	},
 	.probe		= pcf8563_probe,
 	.remove		= pcf8563_remove,
+	.id_table	= pcf8563_id,
 };
 
 static int __init pcf8563_init(void)
-- 
1.5.0


-- 
Laurent Pinchart
CSE Semaphore Belgium

Chaussee de Bruxelles, 732A
B-1410 Waterloo
Belgium

T +32 (2) 387 42 59
F +32 (2) 387 42 75

Re: [PATCH] rtc-pcf8563: Add device ids table

[Kumar Gala]

On Apr 17, 2008, at 10:02 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi,
>
> here's a patch against 2.6.25-rc8-mm2 that adds support for device  
> tree names
> to the rtc-pcf8563 driver.
>
> Is the new-style driver conversion patch in 2.6.25-rc8-mm2 scheduled  
> for
> 2.6.26 ?

Should probably include the rtc & i2c mailing list on such patches/ 
questions.

- k

Re: [PATCH] rtc-pcf8563: Add device ids table

[Jochen Friedrich]

Jean Delvare wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 15:09:55 +0200, Jochen Friedrich wrote:
>> Hi Jean,
>>
>>>>> Is the new-style driver conversion patch in 2.6.25-rc8-mm2 scheduled for
>>>>> 2.6.26 ?
>>>>  hope so! :)
>>> Note that this patch depends on i2c patches which aren't upstream yet.
>> Is there any chance they will got to 2.6.26?
> 
> I'm not sure. I didn't have the time to look at it myself, but I am
> under the impression that the powerpc folks are tired of having to wait
> for me and may push it to Linus through their tree? That would be fine
> with me, as I don't want to be the one delaying something many
> developers want (but I also can't sign patches I've not even read.)

The required patches are:

http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/linuxppc/patch?id=17833
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/linuxppc/patch?id=17834

which are just the forward ported patches you sent to the poweprc mailing list some time ago:

http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/linuxppc/patch?id=16282
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/linuxppc/patch?id=16283

Thanks,
Jochen

Re: [PATCH] rtc-pcf8563: Add device ids table

[Laurent Pinchart]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1538 bytes --]

On Saturday 19 April 2008 18:43, Jochen Friedrich wrote:
> Jean Delvare wrote:
> > On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 15:09:55 +0200, Jochen Friedrich wrote:
> > > Hi Jean,
> > >
> > > > > > Is the new-style driver conversion patch in 2.6.25-rc8-mm2
> > > > > > scheduled for 2.6.26 ?
> > > > >  hope so! :)
> > > > Note that this patch depends on i2c patches which aren't upstream yet.
> > > Is there any chance they will got to 2.6.26?
> > 
> > I'm not sure. I didn't have the time to look at it myself, but I am
> > under the impression that the powerpc folks are tired of having to wait
> > for me and may push it to Linus through their tree? That would be fine
> > with me, as I don't want to be the one delaying something many
> > developers want (but I also can't sign patches I've not even read.)

The patches are required for long awaited I2C support on various PowerPC 
boards. As the ppc architecture support is going away in 2.6.27, it would be 
nice to have them applied in 2.6.26.

> The required patches are:
> 
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/linuxppc/patch?id=17833
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/linuxppc/patch?id=17834
> 
> which are just the forward ported patches you sent to the poweprc mailing
> list some time ago: 
> 
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/linuxppc/patch?id=16282
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/linuxppc/patch?id=16283
> 
> Thanks,
> Jochen

-- 
Laurent Pinchart
CSE Semaphore Belgium

Chaussee de Bruxelles, 732A
B-1410 Waterloo
Belgium

T +32 (2) 387 42 59
F +32 (2) 387 42 75

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] rtc-pcf8563: Add device ids table

[Stefan Roese]

On Monday 21 April 2008, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > > Is there any chance they will got to 2.6.26?
> > >
> > > I'm not sure. I didn't have the time to look at it myself, but I am
> > > under the impression that the powerpc folks are tired of having to wait
> > > for me and may push it to Linus through their tree? That would be fine
> > > with me, as I don't want to be the one delaying something many
> > > developers want (but I also can't sign patches I've not even read.)
>
> The patches are required for long awaited I2C support on various PowerPC
> boards. As the ppc architecture support is going away in 2.6.27, it would
> be nice to have them applied in 2.6.26.

Yes, please.

Best regards,
Stefan

Re: [PATCH] rtc-pcf8563: Add device ids table

[Laurent Pinchart]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1533 bytes --]

Hi Jean,

On Saturday 19 April 2008 18:43, Jochen Friedrich wrote:
> Jean Delvare wrote:
> > On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 15:09:55 +0200, Jochen Friedrich wrote:
> >> Hi Jean,
> >>
> >>>>> Is the new-style driver conversion patch in 2.6.25-rc8-mm2 scheduled
> >>>>> for 2.6.26 ?
> >>>>  hope so! :)
> >>> Note that this patch depends on i2c patches which aren't upstream yet.
> >> Is there any chance they will got to 2.6.26?
> > 
> > I'm not sure. I didn't have the time to look at it myself, but I am
> > under the impression that the powerpc folks are tired of having to wait
> > for me and may push it to Linus through their tree? That would be fine
> > with me, as I don't want to be the one delaying something many
> > developers want (but I also can't sign patches I've not even read.)
> 
> The required patches are:
> 
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/linuxppc/patch?id=17833
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/linuxppc/patch?id=17834
> 
> which are just the forward ported patches you sent to the poweprc mailing
> list some time ago: 
> 
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/linuxppc/patch?id=16282
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/linuxppc/patch?id=16283

Given that the required patches are just forward-ported versions of patches 
you sent (and thus probably reviewed as well :-)), what's the best way to get 
them in 2.6.26 (if at all possible) ?

Best regards,

-- 
Laurent Pinchart
CSE Semaphore Belgium

Chaussee de Bruxelles, 732A
B-1410 Waterloo
Belgium

T +32 (2) 387 42 59
F +32 (2) 387 42 75

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] rtc-pcf8563: Add device ids table

[Jean Delvare]

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:12:48 +0200, Stefan Roese wrote:
> On Monday 21 April 2008, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > > > Is there any chance they will got to 2.6.26?
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure. I didn't have the time to look at it myself, but I am
> > > > under the impression that the powerpc folks are tired of having to wait
> > > > for me and may push it to Linus through their tree? That would be fine
> > > > with me, as I don't want to be the one delaying something many
> > > > developers want (but I also can't sign patches I've not even read.)
> >
> > The patches are required for long awaited I2C support on various PowerPC
> > boards. As the ppc architecture support is going away in 2.6.27, it would
> > be nice to have them applied in 2.6.26.
> 
> Yes, please.

I know that many people would like to see these patches upstream
quickly, no question about that. The problem is that I am very busy
with my day job and my family life these days so I just don't know when
I will find the time an energy to go through this huge patch set.

-- 
Jean Delvare

Re: [PATCH] rtc-pcf8563: Add device ids table

[Jean Delvare]

Hi Laurent,

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:11:56 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Jean,
> 
> On Saturday 19 April 2008 18:43, Jochen Friedrich wrote:
> > Jean Delvare wrote:
> > > I'm not sure. I didn't have the time to look at it myself, but I am
> > > under the impression that the powerpc folks are tired of having to wait
> > > for me and may push it to Linus through their tree? That would be fine
> > > with me, as I don't want to be the one delaying something many
> > > developers want (but I also can't sign patches I've not even read.)

I still don't know exactly what happened there... I think I saw some
"OpenFirmware i2c" patches go upstream yesterday? But not the ones
listed below, which I thought they depended upon.

> > The required patches are:
> > 
> > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/linuxppc/patch?id=17833
> > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/linuxppc/patch?id=17834
> > 
> > which are just the forward ported patches you sent to the poweprc mailing
> > list some time ago: 
> > 
> > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/linuxppc/patch?id=16282
> > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/linuxppc/patch?id=16283
> 
> Given that the required patches are just forward-ported versions of patches 
> you sent (and thus probably reviewed as well :-)), what's the best way to get 
> them in 2.6.26 (if at all possible) ?

It's not that easy. A lot of new new-style i2c drivers have shown up in
the kernel since I wrote my patches (themselves derived heavily from
Jon Smirl's). Even if Jochen's patches are based on mine, we still need
to take a careful look on how each driver is modified, I remember for
example that some v4l drivers were using the original new-style driver
binding in a way I did not expect. So I can't just sign these patches
and hope they didn't break anything. It needs care, and this requires
time.

I will do my best to get this done before the 2.6.26 merge window
closes, but I can't promise anything.

-- 
Jean Delvare

Re: [PATCH] rtc-pcf8563: Add device ids table

[Stefan Roese]

On Wednesday 23 April 2008, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > > The patches are required for long awaited I2C support on various
> > > PowerPC boards. As the ppc architecture support is going away in
> > > 2.6.27, it would be nice to have them applied in 2.6.26.
> >
> > Yes, please.
>
> I know that many people would like to see these patches upstream
> quickly, no question about that. The problem is that I am very busy
> with my day job and my family life these days

Something I know very well too. ;)

Please don't get we wrong, I didn't want to put additional pressure on you 
here. I just wanted to express that I'm waiting for these patches to arrive 
upstream quite some time now too.

> so I just don't know when 
> I will find the time an energy to go through this huge patch set.

Your hard work is really appreciated. Thanks a lot.

Best regards,
Stefan

Re: [PATCH] rtc-pcf8563: Add device ids table

[Jochen Friedrich]

Hi Stefan,

> Please don't get we wrong, I didn't want to put additional pressure on you 
> here. I just wanted to express that I'm waiting for these patches to arrive 
> upstream quite some time now too.

and unfortunately, the longer we wait the more drivers are ported to new-style
and the bigger the patch grows :(.

Thanks,
Jochen

Re: [PATCH] rtc-pcf8563: Add device ids table

[Laurent Pinchart]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2765 bytes --]

Hi Jean,

On Wednesday 23 April 2008 13:16, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Laurent,
> 
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:11:56 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > Hi Jean,
> > 
> > On Saturday 19 April 2008 18:43, Jochen Friedrich wrote:
> > > Jean Delvare wrote:
> > > > I'm not sure. I didn't have the time to look at it myself, but I am
> > > > under the impression that the powerpc folks are tired of having to
> > > > wait for me and may push it to Linus through their tree? That would be
> > > > fine with me, as I don't want to be the one delaying something many
> > > > developers want (but I also can't sign patches I've not even read.)
> 
> I still don't know exactly what happened there... I think I saw some
> "OpenFirmware i2c" patches go upstream yesterday? But not the ones
> listed below, which I thought they depended upon.

The code that went upstream introduces helper functions to create i2c devices 
from information supplied by the OF device tree. It doesn't strictly depend 
on the below patches, but the new devices won't be properly bound to a driver 
without them.

> > > The required patches are:
> > > 
> > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/linuxppc/patch?id=17833
> > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/linuxppc/patch?id=17834
> > > 
> > > which are just the forward ported patches you sent to the poweprc
> > > mailing list some time ago: 
> > > 
> > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/linuxppc/patch?id=16282
> > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/linuxppc/patch?id=16283
> > 
> > Given that the required patches are just forward-ported versions of
> > patches you sent (and thus probably reviewed as well :-)), what's the best
> > way to get them in 2.6.26 (if at all possible) ?
> 
> It's not that easy. A lot of new new-style i2c drivers have shown up in
> the kernel since I wrote my patches (themselves derived heavily from
> Jon Smirl's). Even if Jochen's patches are based on mine, we still need
> to take a careful look on how each driver is modified, I remember for
> example that some v4l drivers were using the original new-style driver
> binding in a way I did not expect. So I can't just sign these patches
> and hope they didn't break anything. It needs care, and this requires
> time.

I won't ask to merge the patches for 2.6.26-rc1 and fix introduced breakages 
afterwards, I know how you would react to that :-)

> I will do my best to get this done before the 2.6.26 merge window
> closes, but I can't promise anything.

Nobody will get angry if you can't merge them in time for 2.6.26. But many 
people will be happy if you can :-)

Cheers,

-- 
Laurent Pinchart
CSE Semaphore Belgium

Chaussee de Bruxelles, 732A
B-1410 Waterloo
Belgium

T +32 (2) 387 42 59
F +32 (2) 387 42 75

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] rtc-pcf8563: Add device ids table

[Jean Delvare]

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:12:37 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Wednesday 23 April 2008 13:16, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > I still don't know exactly what happened there... I think I saw some
> > "OpenFirmware i2c" patches go upstream yesterday? But not the ones
> > listed below, which I thought they depended upon.
> 
> The code that went upstream introduces helper functions to create i2c devices 
> from information supplied by the OF device tree. It doesn't strictly depend 
> on the below patches, but the new devices won't be properly bound to a driver 
> without them.

OK. So... Out of the 7 patches Jochen sent originally, only 1 ([3/7] OF
helpers for the i2c API) went upstream. Am I correct?

Jochen, I'm a bit confused by the dependencies that exist - or not -
between these 7 patches you sent at once. I thought they had to be
applied in sequence but it seems not? And some of them should
apparently go through me i2c tree but others (e.g. [7/7]) not?

I would appreciate if you could summarize quickly which patches depend
on others in which way. If we can make smaller subsets of patches, that
will be easier for me to review and push upstream on my limited time.

Thanks,
-- 
Jean Delvare

Re: [PATCH] rtc-pcf8563: Add device ids table

[Jon Smirl]

On 4/23/08, Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org> wrote:
> Hi Laurent,
>
>
>  On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:11:56 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>  > Hi Jean,
>  >
>  > On Saturday 19 April 2008 18:43, Jochen Friedrich wrote:
>  > > Jean Delvare wrote:
>
> > > > I'm not sure. I didn't have the time to look at it myself, but I am
>  > > > under the impression that the powerpc folks are tired of having to wait
>  > > > for me and may push it to Linus through their tree? That would be fine
>  > > > with me, as I don't want to be the one delaying something many
>  > > > developers want (but I also can't sign patches I've not even read.)

My company has stuck with 2.6.24 and my original patch set.  We'd like
to sync back up with mainline at some point.

> I still don't know exactly what happened there... I think I saw some
>  "OpenFirmware i2c" patches go upstream yesterday? But not the ones
>  listed below, which I thought they depended upon.
>
>
>  > > The required patches are:
>  > >
>  > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/linuxppc/patch?id=17833
>  > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/linuxppc/patch?id=17834
>  > >
>  > > which are just the forward ported patches you sent to the poweprc mailing
>  > > list some time ago:
>  > >
>  > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/linuxppc/patch?id=16282
>  > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/linuxppc/patch?id=16283
>  >
>  > Given that the required patches are just forward-ported versions of patches
>  > you sent (and thus probably reviewed as well :-)), what's the best way to get
>  > them in 2.6.26 (if at all possible) ?
>
>
> It's not that easy. A lot of new new-style i2c drivers have shown up in
>  the kernel since I wrote my patches (themselves derived heavily from
>  Jon Smirl's). Even if Jochen's patches are based on mine, we still need
>  to take a careful look on how each driver is modified, I remember for
>  example that some v4l drivers were using the original new-style driver
>  binding in a way I did not expect. So I can't just sign these patches
>  and hope they didn't break anything. It needs care, and this requires
>  time.
>
>  I will do my best to get this done before the 2.6.26 merge window
>  closes, but I can't promise anything.
>
>  --
>
> Jean Delvare
>
> _______________________________________________
>  Linuxppc-dev mailing list
>  Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
>  https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
>


-- 
Jon Smirl
jonsmirl@gmail.com

Re: [PATCH] rtc-pcf8563: Add device ids table

[Jochen Friedrich]

Hi Jean,

> Jochen, I'm a bit confused by the dependencies that exist - or not -
> between these 7 patches you sent at once. I thought they had to be
> applied in sequence but it seems not? And some of them should
> apparently go through me i2c tree but others (e.g. [7/7]) not?

[1/7] and [2/7] are forward ports of patches from you. I'm currently
just running a make allmodconfig compile to check if it really caught
all affected i2c drivers.

These are the patches we are talking about.

[3/7] is the OF helper stuff which translates between OF names and
i2c types. It does NOT translate OF names to module names, but relies
on [1/7] to do so. Without [1/7], [3/7] still applies, but module
auto loading won't work.

This has been applied to 2.6.26.

> I would appreciate if you could summarize quickly which patches depend
> on others in which way. If we can make smaller subsets of patches, that
> will be easier for me to review and push upstream on my limited time.

[4/7] is the patch from Jon Smirl to convert i2c-mpc to OF. This relies
on [3/7] instead of Jons initial OF-autoloading patches you didn't like.
As there were no comments at all, I would however postpone this to 2.6.27.

[5/7] is the cleanup patch (originating from you) which completely removes
old driver matching scheme. This should probably wait until 2.6.27, as well.
This relies on [1/7] and [2/7].

[6/7] and [7/7] are a new driver and depend on [3/7]. This can wait for 2.6.27,
as well (i would rather like to see those in -mm to get more testing, though).

Thanks,
Jochen

Re: [PATCH] rtc-pcf8563: Add device ids table

[Jon Smirl]

On 4/23/08, Jochen Friedrich <jochen@scram.de> wrote:
> Hi Jean,
>
>
>  > Jochen, I'm a bit confused by the dependencies that exist - or not -
>  > between these 7 patches you sent at once. I thought they had to be
>  > applied in sequence but it seems not? And some of them should
>  > apparently go through me i2c tree but others (e.g. [7/7]) not?
>
>
> [1/7] and [2/7] are forward ports of patches from you. I'm currently
>  just running a make allmodconfig compile to check if it really caught
>  all affected i2c drivers.
>
>  These are the patches we are talking about.
>
>  [3/7] is the OF helper stuff which translates between OF names and
>  i2c types. It does NOT translate OF names to module names, but relies
>  on [1/7] to do so. Without [1/7], [3/7] still applies, but module
>  auto loading won't work.
>
>  This has been applied to 2.6.26.
>
>
>  > I would appreciate if you could summarize quickly which patches depend
>  > on others in which way. If we can make smaller subsets of patches, that
>  > will be easier for me to review and push upstream on my limited time.
>
>
> [4/7] is the patch from Jon Smirl to convert i2c-mpc to OF. This relies
>  on [3/7] instead of Jons initial OF-autoloading patches you didn't like.
>  As there were no comments at all, I would however postpone this to 2.6.27.

This is why we chose to ignore mainline and do these changes in our
own tree. There is no certainty when or if these patches will ever go
in. This has also caused us to stop submitting code in other areas.
It's all intertwined and too much work to break up.


>  [5/7] is the cleanup patch (originating from you) which completely removes
>  old driver matching scheme. This should probably wait until 2.6.27, as well.
>  This relies on [1/7] and [2/7].
>
>  [6/7] and [7/7] are a new driver and depend on [3/7]. This can wait for 2.6.27,
>  as well (i would rather like to see those in -mm to get more testing, though).
>
>  Thanks,
>
> Jochen
>
> _______________________________________________
>  Linuxppc-dev mailing list
>  Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
>  https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
>


-- 
Jon Smirl
jonsmirl@gmail.com

Re: [PATCH] rtc-pcf8563: Add device ids table

[Laurent Pinchart]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3602 bytes --]

On Wednesday 23 April 2008 14:47, Jean Delvare wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:12:37 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Wednesday 23 April 2008 13:16, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > > I still don't know exactly what happened there... I think I saw some
> > > "OpenFirmware i2c" patches go upstream yesterday? But not the ones
> > > listed below, which I thought they depended upon.
> > 
> > The code that went upstream introduces helper functions to create i2c
> > devices from information supplied by the OF device tree. It doesn't
> > strictly depend on the below patches, but the new devices won't be
> > properly bound to a driver without them.
> 
> OK. So... Out of the 7 patches Jochen sent originally, only 1 ([3/7] OF
> helpers for the i2c API) went upstream. Am I correct?
> 
> Jochen, I'm a bit confused by the dependencies that exist - or not -
> between these 7 patches you sent at once. I thought they had to be
> applied in sequence but it seems not? And some of them should
> apparently go through me i2c tree but others (e.g. [7/7]) not?
> 
> I would appreciate if you could summarize quickly which patches depend
> on others in which way. If we can make smaller subsets of patches, that
> will be easier for me to review and push upstream on my limited time.

Here is a summary based on my understanding of the situation. Jochen please 
correct me if I'm wrong.

[PATCH1/7] i2c: Add support for device alias names

This patch allows new-style i2c chip drivers to have alias names using
the official kernel aliasing system and MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(). It basically 
adds device id table found in various subsystems (PCI, USB, ...) to i2c 
new-style drivers.

The patch extends the new-style i2c device/driver matching code to support 
device id tables. It modifies the drivers accordingly, as the probe function 
now takes an extra argument (pointer to the device id entry that matched), 
but doesn't add device id tables to the drivers.

[PATCH2/7] i2c: Convert all new-style drivers to use module aliasing

This patch adds the device id tables to the new-style i2c drivers. It depends 
on the previous patch.

[PATCH3/7] i2c: OF helpers for the i2c API

This one has already been applied through the ppc subsystem. It adds helper 
functions to instantiate i2c devices from the OF device tree. The patch has 
no compile time dependencies but relies on 1/7 and 2/7 to bind devices to 
drivers at runtime.

[PATCH4/7] i2c: Convert PowerPC MPC i2c to of_platform_driver from 
platform_driver

This patch should go through the ppc subsystem. It adds OF device tree support 
to the i2c-mpc driver. To the best of my knowledge it depends on 3/7 only.

[PATCH5/7] i2c: Kill the old driver matching scheme

This patch removes the old driver_name/type scheme for i2c driver matching. 
Only the new matching scheme introduced by 2/7 remains for new-style drivers.

[PATCH6/7] i2c: adds support for i2c bus on Freescale CPM1/CPM2 controllers

This one introduces a new i2c bus driver. It should go through the ppc 
subsystem. To the best of my knowledge it depends on 3/7 only.

[PATCH7/7] [POWERPC] Add i2c pins to dts and board setup

This last patch configures i2c pins on various powerpc boards and updates the 
associated device trees to include the i2c controller. It should go through 
the ppc subsystem. It has no compile-time dependency on any other patch in 
the serie.

-- 
Laurent Pinchart
CSE Semaphore Belgium

Chaussee de Bruxelles, 732A
B-1410 Waterloo
Belgium

T +32 (2) 387 42 59
F +32 (2) 387 42 75

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] rtc-pcf8563: Add device ids table

[Jean Delvare]

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:26:34 +0200, Jochen Friedrich wrote:
> Hi Jean,
> 
> > Jochen, I'm a bit confused by the dependencies that exist - or not -
> > between these 7 patches you sent at once. I thought they had to be
> > applied in sequence but it seems not? And some of them should
> > apparently go through me i2c tree but others (e.g. [7/7]) not?
> 
> [1/7] and [2/7] are forward ports of patches from you. I'm currently
> just running a make allmodconfig compile to check if it really caught
> all affected i2c drivers.
> 
> These are the patches we are talking about.
> 
> [3/7] is the OF helper stuff which translates between OF names and
> i2c types. It does NOT translate OF names to module names, but relies
> on [1/7] to do so. Without [1/7], [3/7] still applies, but module
> auto loading won't work.
> 
> This has been applied to 2.6.26.
> 
> > I would appreciate if you could summarize quickly which patches depend
> > on others in which way. If we can make smaller subsets of patches, that
> > will be easier for me to review and push upstream on my limited time.
> 
> [4/7] is the patch from Jon Smirl to convert i2c-mpc to OF. This relies
> on [3/7] instead of Jons initial OF-autoloading patches you didn't like.
> As there were no comments at all, I would however postpone this to 2.6.27.
> 
> [5/7] is the cleanup patch (originating from you) which completely removes
> old driver matching scheme. This should probably wait until 2.6.27, as well.
> This relies on [1/7] and [2/7].
> 
> [6/7] and [7/7] are a new driver and depend on [3/7]. This can wait for 2.6.27,
> as well (i would rather like to see those in -mm to get more testing, though).

Thanks for the summary. Right now I'm working on [1/7] and [2/7] to get
something ready to go upstream in the next few days. Probably only a
part of [2/7] can go there quickly, non-trivial cases (e.g. ivtv) will
have to wait until rc2 or later. I also agree with you that [5/7]
should be delayed for now, we need to make sure that no driver is left
using the old device/driver matching scheme, and that can't possibly be
done before rc2 at best.

I will post the 2 updated patches for review and testing as soon as I
am done.

-- 
Jean Delvare