From: Kumar Gala <galak@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
Cc: Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>,
linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, i2c@lm-sensors.org
Subject: Re: [i2c] [PATCH 3/5] powerpc: Document device nodes for I2C devices.
Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 12:33:48 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <79CACFC8-DD5B-4284-AC2E-C92FE2A85330@kernel.crashing.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <464DDFA5.6050106@freescale.com>
On May 18, 2007, at 12:17 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
> 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?
Once you expand the beyond just a root node for the controller I'd
like to see how you suggest we handle the case where a particular
child ends up having children as well. You example, is sufficient
the majority of devices, but I'd like to know that we'll be able to
handle the case where a node is both a device and controller.
>> 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.
If/when they sign up for this I'd be more inclined to have kernel
support for it.
>> 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.
Ok, but what functionality does it give us that we dont already have
today?
- k
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-05-18 17:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-05-17 14:38 [PATCH 3/5] powerpc: Document device nodes for I2C devices Scott Wood
2007-05-17 16:12 ` Kumar Gala
2007-05-17 16:17 ` Scott Wood
2007-05-17 16:39 ` Kumar Gala
2007-05-17 16:47 ` Scott Wood
2007-05-17 17:21 ` Kumar Gala
2007-05-17 18:29 ` Scott Wood
2007-05-18 15:15 ` [i2c] " Jean Delvare
2007-05-18 16:24 ` Kumar Gala
2007-05-18 16:35 ` Scott Wood
2007-05-18 17:10 ` Kumar Gala
2007-05-18 17:17 ` Scott Wood
2007-05-18 17:33 ` Kumar Gala [this message]
2007-05-18 17:55 ` Scott Wood
2007-05-20 11:53 ` Jean Delvare
2007-05-21 14:57 ` Scott Wood
2007-05-19 0:04 ` Matt Sealey
2007-05-19 0:17 ` Segher Boessenkool
2007-05-19 13:41 ` Matt Sealey
2007-05-19 16:25 ` Segher Boessenkool
2007-05-20 14:53 ` Matt Sealey
2007-05-20 15:48 ` Segher Boessenkool
2007-05-27 9:48 ` Matt Sealey
2007-05-20 11:42 ` Jean Delvare
2007-05-18 20:07 ` Segher Boessenkool
2007-05-17 19:18 ` Segher Boessenkool
2007-05-17 19:32 ` Scott Wood
2007-05-17 19:44 ` Segher Boessenkool
2007-05-17 21:15 ` Scott Wood
2007-05-18 15:27 ` [i2c] " Jean Delvare
2007-05-18 15:58 ` Scott Wood
2007-05-18 16:29 ` Kumar Gala
2007-05-18 16:31 ` Jean Delvare
2007-05-18 16:56 ` Kumar Gala
2007-05-18 19:00 ` David Brownell
2007-05-18 15:19 ` Jean Delvare
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=79CACFC8-DD5B-4284-AC2E-C92FE2A85330@kernel.crashing.org \
--to=galak@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=i2c@lm-sensors.org \
--cc=khali@linux-fr.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
--cc=scottwood@freescale.com \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).