From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261209AbUBVJlN (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Feb 2004 04:41:13 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261213AbUBVJlN (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Feb 2004 04:41:13 -0500 Received: from smtp-100-sunday.noc.nerim.net ([62.4.17.100]:12554 "EHLO mallaury.noc.nerim.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261209AbUBVJlI (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Feb 2004 04:41:08 -0500 Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 10:41:06 +0100 From: Jean Delvare To: Manish Lachwani Cc: LM Sensors , LKML , Greg KH Subject: i2c-yosemite Message-Id: <20040222104106.714de992.khali@linux-fr.org> Reply-To: LM Sensors , LKML X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Manish, I saw that there is a new driver named i2c-yosemite in Linux 2.6.3-mm2. Quoting your words in the header: "Currently, this Linux driver wont be integrated into the generic Linux I2C framework." Why that? If everyone reimplements what already exists, the kernel is likely to go bigger with no benefit. Also, you won't be able to use all user-space tools that already exist, and will also have to write specific chip drivers for the chips present on the yosemite bus, although these drivers (Atmel 24C32 EEPROM and MAX 1619) already exist. Please explain to us why you cannot/don't want to use the existing i2c subsystem. Thanks. -- Jean Delvare http://www.ensicaen.ismra.fr/~delvare/