Re: [i2c] Problem with restricted I2C algorithms in kernel 2.6.26!

[Jon Smirl]

On 7/26/08, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> (cc's added)
>
>
>  On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:33:57 -0700 "D. Kelly" <user.kernel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>  > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=3845de25c5f83cd52729570f7b501679d37ca8de
>  >
>  > The patch at the preceeding url disables the users ability to select
>  > I2C algorithms.  Specifically the reason stated was:
>  >
>  > "The algorithm drivers are
>  > helper drivers that are selected automatically
>  > as needed. There's no point in listing them in the config menu, it can
>  > only confuse users and waste their time."

I support Jean's decision on this. Very few people know how to
correctly enable those algorithms and most people get them wrong. Now
they are set automatically.

What about merging a placeholder driver for dvb-s2 that selects the
needed i2c algorithm? Then merge a real driver as soon as possible.

My out of tree drivers are written as a patch against the kernel. The
patch contains a select for the algorithm in my Kconfig additions.
When the drivers work, I'll submit them.



>  >
>  > The algorithm drivers will not be 'selected automatically as needed'
>  > if the user is compiling something outside of the kernel that requires
>  > them!  Just one example, there are drivers found in the V4L dvb driver
>  > tree that require i2c bit-banging be enabled.  The drivers are now
>  > broken because the user is not allowed to enable bit-banging himself.
>  > The only way around this is to revert the patch manually or enable
>  > something else in the kernel, that he doesn't need, just to get
>  > bit-banging.
>  >
>  > It's a very bad idea to assume that nothing built outside of the
>  > kernel may need i2c algorithms.  Furthermore, the whole point of being
>  > able to customize your kernel is so you can select only the things
>  > which you need.  It makes no good sense to intentionally
>  > disable/restrict the users ability to do so.  Additionally, assuming
>  > the ability to select i2c algorithms will only confuse the user and
>  > waste their time is ridiculous.  The user should be allowed to decide
>  > for himself what he needs regarding this!
>  >
>  > One of the biggest reasons people choose to compile things from
>  > cvs/svn/mercurial/etc. is because it gives them access to newer bug
>  > fixes and support for things not yet present in the kernel source.  A
>  > perfect example, the multiproto dvb driver tree.  Users wanting
>  > support for dvb-s2 devices have to compile drivers outside of the
>  > kernel because it's simply not available in the kernel and won't be
>  > for some time.
>  >
>  > I've contacted one of the i2c subsystem maintainers, Jean Delvare, but
>  > unfortunately he doesn't seem to care about this problem and his
>  > advice in dealing with it is to "Just get these drivers merged in the
>  > kernel. Ah ah ah!"...
>  >
>  > Clearly the more sane and reasonable solution is to not cripple the
>  > menu options in the first place, especially when it creates no benefit
>  > and only serves to limit/restrict the users ability to select what he
>  > needs.  I'm asking that the patch be reverted and anyone in agreement
>  > to please voice their opinion here in public.
>  >
>  > Best regards,
>  > -Derek
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>  i2c mailing list
>  i2c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>  http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/i2c
>


-- 
Jon Smirl
jonsmirl@xxxxxxxxx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/