Re: [RESEND PATCH v4 0/8] i2c: Relax mandatory I2C ID table passing

Lee Jones
2015-10-02T09:35:18Z

On Thu, 01 Oct 2015, Wolfram Sang wrote:

>
> > > Yes but that is not true for drivers that support both OF and legacy board
> > > files. For those drivers, there will be a lot of boiler plate code duplicated
> > > that would look something like:
> > >
> > > unsigned long data;
> > > struct of_device_id *match;
> > > struct i2c_devicd_id *id;
> > >
> > > if (i2c->dev.of_node) {
> > > match = i2c_of_match_device(of_match_table, i2c);
> > > if (!match)
> > > return -EINVAL;
> > >
> > > data = (unsigned long)match->data;
> > > } else {
> > > id = i2c_match_id(id_table, i2c);
> > > if (!id)
> > > return -EINVAL;
> > >
> > > data = id->driver_data;
> > > }
>
> I said this before: It is not only the additional code, I think it is
> quite unelegant to to do the matching again which has already been done.
> (and DT boottime has already increased, partly due to the excessive
> string matching). Also, I wouldn't like to see an I2C specific solution;
> this problem exists for other subsystems, too.
>
> > I'm fine with a new API for this stuff. I'm even happy to go ahead
> > and code it up, but it's important to note that this is work which
> > should be based on this set and not a blocker for this set to be
> > accepted.
>
> Is that a promise? :)

Yes.

> > The correct approach is the former. One of the aims of this set was
> > to bring the I2C .probe() call-back more into line with the majority
> > of the other .probe() calls in the kernel i.e. with only a single
> > parameter. I'm really not a fan of passing some random void pointer
>
> Yes, I like this about this series.
>
> > in. Using a look-up call to fetch ACPI/OF/I2C/etc data is the current
> > norm and is a very viable option.
>
> It is the status quo, but that doesn't make it better IMO.
>
> > Wolfram, please (finally :D) take this set.
>
> I tend to give in ;)

Great. Although, I don't see a "applied, thanks". :)

Please just take it, so we can breathe a sigh of relief and move on to
the next stage. :D

> Maybe we can talk in Dublin a bit about a possible
> next step after this series?

I'm happy to chat, although I'm afraid I won't be in Dublin this
time. Kieran will be though, so feel free to so some lobby loitering
and I'll discuss with him when he returns. Failing that we can
hook-up on Gtalk or IRC etc.

--
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog