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 0756ADDED0 for ; Sat, 19 May 2007 03:25:30 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <464DDFA5.6050106@freescale.com> Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 12:17:25 -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> <464DD5E3.1060301@freescale.com> <6F8D3143-423D-45FA-9F40-00BF770831F2@kernel.crashing.org> In-Reply-To: <6F8D3143-423D-45FA-9F40-00BF770831F2@kernel.crashing.org> 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: > > On May 18, 2007, at 11:35 AM, Scott Wood wrote: > >> 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? > > > I provided you an example device and asked you to explain how it would > be described in what you are proposing. And I did. What did you find lacking in the device tree fragment I suggested? > I never said don't bother because you didn't cover the switch/mux > case. I said don't bother because I don't see what the value is > creating a namespace that no one is going to manage and thus will end > up most likely being linux specific, and linux already provides a > solution for the problem. Given that power.org is attempting to do further standardization of the device tree for embedded applications, I'd be surprised if there weren't a way we could have them act as a registry. > For I2C specifically we already have both a dynamic way (kernel cmd > line) and static (i2c_board_info) to specify the i2c devices, why do we > need yet another? This uses i2c_board_info; it doesn't replace it. -Scott