From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262418AbUEFTe2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 May 2004 15:34:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262547AbUEFTe2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 May 2004 15:34:28 -0400 Received: from smtp-104-thursday.noc.nerim.net ([62.4.17.104]:9746 "EHLO mallaury.noc.nerim.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262418AbUEFTe0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 May 2004 15:34:26 -0400 Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 21:34:55 +0200 From: Jean Delvare To: Michael Hunold Cc: torvalds@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@osdl.org, greg@kroah.com, sensors@stimpy.netroedge.com Subject: Re: [PATCH][2.6] Message-Id: <20040506213455.29154c51.khali@linux-fr.org> In-Reply-To: <409923F7.7050101@convergence.de> References: <409923F7.7050101@convergence.de> Reply-To: sensors@stimpy.netroedge.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.10 (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 > With the new I2C_CLASS_ALL flag it will be possible that an adapter > can request that really all drivers are probed on the adapter. On the > other hand, drivers can make sure that they get the chance to probe on > every i2c adapter out there (this is not encouraged, though) Depends. For example the eeprom driver will do that, and this is correct. That said, I agree that this is a collaborative approach and everybody will have to play the game. > - rename I2C_ADAP_CLASS_xxx to I2C_CLASS_xxx (to be used both for > drivers and adapters) > - add new I2C_CLASS_ALL and I2C_CLASS_SOUND classes Mmm, I once proposed that I2C_ADAP_CLASS_SMBUS would be better renamed I2C_ADAP_CLASS_SENSORS (so I2C_CLASS_SENSORS now). What about that? I think it would be great to embed that change into your patch, so that the name changes only once. Now that we come to speak about that, I wonder if we would _also_ need a SMBUS class. SMBus is mostly a subset of I2C, essentially (but not completely) compatible. It may be useful at some point to know if a chip is compliant with SMBus or not. I don't think that i2c-core can make use of this at the moment, nor can I think of concrete examples where this would be needed. It's just a thought at the moment and I mention it here in case anyone has comments ;) For now we can stick to the classes we have (with the SMBUS->SENSORS change and the new SOUND class). The true SMBUS class can always be added later if needed, I guess. BTW, if HWMON is prefered to SENSORS, this is fine with me too, I have no strong preference. Thanks. -- Jean Delvare http://khali.linux-fr.org/