public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michael Hunold <hunold-ml@web.de>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sensors@Stimpy.netroedge.com
Cc: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][2.6] Add command function to struct i2c_adapter
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 22:21:08 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <415481B4.10804@web.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040924200503.652ccf8e.khali@linux-fr.org>

Hi,

On 24.09.2004 20:05, Jean Delvare wrote:
>>We like to have an completly isolated i2c adapter, where the device 
>>driver can invite i2c drivers to connect an i2c client to. When the 
>>connection is made, an "interface" pointer with client-specific data
>>or function pointers can be provided.
>>(...)
>>- add a new NO_PROBE flag to struct i2c_adapter, so a particular
>>adapter is never probed by anyone

> I don't get it. If the adapter is isolated, there is no way the i2c-core
> will probe it anyway. As Adrian Cox underlined, it should be far easier
> and more efficient to separate these adapters from the main i2c adapters
> list from the beginning than leaving them in the main list and then try
> and prevent future probings using a flag.

There a two scenarios, where you don't have full control over the i2c 
adapter or you don't want to fully isolate the bus:

1) Some dvb drivers are bttv-sub-drivers, ie. bttv does the pci and i2c 
handling by itself. You have the struct i2c_adapter pointer, but it has 
been registered by bttv, most likely as an analog and/or digital tv i2c bus.

2) Embedded platforms have usually a system-wide i2c bus, so you cannot 
isolate the bus here.

It's useful to register both adapters and drivers to the i2c-core, so 
you keep the door open.

> Also, how does this proposal interact with the work on the i2c classes?
> Although the classes carry more information than a simple flag or a
> complete separation, both were/may be introduced to achieve the same
> goal, isn't it?

Partly, yes.

The .class approach is necessary to have a finer grained access control 
by the i2c-core regarding bus classes, ie. not the client drivers have 
to check if the bus should be probed (for example dcc drivers on a dvb 
bus). This is useful in general.

If we have a PCI card where we exactly know what we are doing, we can 
use the NO_PROBE flag to effectively block any probing and can use the 
proposed interface to manually connect the clients.

> Thanks,

CU
Michael.

  reply	other threads:[~2004-09-24 20:21 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-09-20 17:19 [PATCH][2.6] Add command function to struct i2c_adapter Michael Hunold
2004-09-21 15:41 ` Greg KH
2004-09-21 17:10   ` Michael Hunold
2004-09-21 17:39     ` Jon Smirl
2004-09-21 18:05       ` Michael Hunold
2004-09-22  8:56         ` Adrian Cox
2004-09-22 12:08           ` Jean Delvare
2004-09-22 11:54             ` Adrian Cox
2004-09-22 13:38               ` Jean Delvare
2004-09-22 13:13                 ` Adrian Cox
2004-09-22 15:40                 ` Jon Smirl
2004-09-22 15:56                   ` Adrian Cox
2004-09-22 16:07                     ` Jon Smirl
2004-09-22 16:51                       ` Adrian Cox
2004-09-22 17:17                         ` Jon Smirl
2004-09-22 18:55                         ` Jean Delvare
2004-09-22 18:32                 ` Adrian Cox
2004-09-22 20:04                   ` Mark M. Hoffman
2004-09-23  7:41                   ` Michael Hunold
2004-09-23  7:48                   ` Michael Hunold
2004-09-23  7:09               ` Michael Hunold
2004-09-23 20:18                 ` Adrian Cox
2004-09-21 20:33       ` Jean Delvare
2004-09-21 21:02         ` Jon Smirl
2004-09-24 17:06   ` Michael Hunold
2004-09-24 18:05     ` Jean Delvare
2004-09-24 20:21       ` Michael Hunold [this message]
2004-10-01  6:52         ` Greg KH
2004-10-01 12:22           ` Adrian Cox
2004-10-01 13:57             ` Jean Delvare
2004-10-01 23:41             ` Greg KH
     [not found] <41500BED.8090607@linuxtv.org>
2004-09-21 13:28 ` Jean Delvare
2004-09-21 14:38   ` Michael Hunold

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=415481B4.10804@web.de \
    --to=hunold-ml@web.de \
    --cc=greg@kroah.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sensors@Stimpy.netroedge.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