From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from de01egw01.freescale.net (de01egw01.freescale.net [192.88.165.102]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "de01egw01.freescale.net", Issuer "Thawte Premium Server CA" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3819DDF26 for ; Sat, 19 May 2007 02:43:51 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <464DD5E3.1060301@freescale.com> Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 11:35:47 -0500 From: Scott Wood MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kumar Gala Subject: Re: [i2c] [PATCH 3/5] powerpc: Document device nodes for I2C devices. References: <20070517143846.GC29795@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net> <464C800C.20400@freescale.com> <464C871C.4090300@freescale.com> <5B363A90-5528-4441-BBF9-9C6D8833D938@kernel.crashing.org> <20070518171555.543f9bdc@hyperion.delvare> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Cc: Jean Delvare , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, i2c@lm-sensors.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Kumar Gala wrote: > I guess my gripe is about proposing a solution and not willing to > extend it in light of people providing issues with it. I'm perfectly willing to extend it if you let me know what you think is needed, rather than just saying "switches and muxes". What *specifically* would they need beyond what I proposed? > Last time I > check we don't put things into the kernel w/o any review and if people > have issues that are reasonable they get hashed out. It seems that the > onus is on the initial submitter to either show that what they are > providing is sufficient and w/o issue or incorporate the feedback. Give me something I can incorporate, then. My gripe is when the feedback is "don't bother" based on unspecified problems with a configuration more complex than what it was intended to address (but still, AFAICT, not outside its ability to address). > More specifically, we have a way to specify what devices are connect on > I2C today. I'm not convinced there is any value in creating yet > another mechanism, especially in an interface that in theory should be > linux agnostic. We had a way to specify platform devices before, too. If the device tree isn't worthwhile for i2c devices, why is it worthwhile for soc devices? It seems to me that non-probable chips like i2c devices are precisely the kind of thing that the device tree is useful for. -Scott