From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932156AbbJUIMw (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Oct 2015 04:12:52 -0400 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:58711 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753186AbbJUIMs (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Oct 2015 04:12:48 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.17,711,1437462000"; d="scan'208";a="815939363" Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 11:12:31 +0300 From: Mika Westerberg To: Dustin Byford Cc: Wolfram Sang , linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net, andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] i2c: add ACPI support for I2C mux ports Message-ID: <20151021081231.GQ1526@lahna.fi.intel.com> References: <1439510358-16664-1-git-send-email-dustin@cumulusnetworks.com> <1445293740-28537-1-git-send-email-dustin@cumulusnetworks.com> <1445293740-28537-2-git-send-email-dustin@cumulusnetworks.com> <20151020125111.GJ1526@lahna.fi.intel.com> <20151020174959.GA14829@cumulusnetworks.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151020174959.GA14829@cumulusnetworks.com> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:49:59AM -0700, Dustin Byford wrote: > I considered it, but I thought a default that fairly closely matches the > old behavior was more convenient. > > On the other hand, leaving it up to the controllers makes it all very > explicit and perhaps simpler to reason about. > > > I could be convinced either way. But, if we move it to the controller > drivers, which ones need the change? > > grep -i acpi drivers/i2c/busses/i2c* > > shows 18 drivers that might care. I'm quite confident the designware I2C is enough for now. Intel uses it for all SoCs with LPSS and I think AMD has the same block for their I2C solution. > > adap->dev.parent = &pdev->dev; > > adap->dev.of_node = pdev->dev.of_node; > > ACPI_COMPANION_SET(&adap->dev, ACPI_COMPANION(&pdev->dev)); > > Interesting, this code isn't in my tree. I wonder why it was added, > what code looks at the acpi companion on the i2c dev? Before my change > it was supposed to be NULL, and it is NULL on every other controller. It is not in any tree. I meant that before b34bb1ee71158d5b it looked something like that :-)