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

[Lee Jones]

On Fri, 29 Aug 2014, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > Placing this firmly back on your plate.  I truly hope we don't miss
> > another merge-window.
> 
> Nope, we won't. I'll still need a week or so due to other duties.

Perfectly reasonable.

> > This patch-set has the support of some pretty
> > senior kernel maintainers, so I hope acceptance shouldn't be too
> > difficult.
> 
> Cool, then they could ack it like Grant did? That surely helps.

I was talking about Grant (and Linus - I'll poke him seperately). ;)

> > As previously discussed I believe it should be okay for an I2C device
> > driver _not_ supply an I2C ID table to match to.
> 
> I agree...
> 
> > The I2C subsystem
> > should be able to match via other means, such as via OF tables.  The
> > blocking factor during our previous conversation was to keep
> > registering via sysfs up and running.  This set does that.
> 
> ... yet it also should not cause regressions. If you fixed that, sounds
> great!
>
> > After thinking more deeply about the problem, it occurred to me that
> > any I2C device driver which uses the sysfs method and issues an
> > of_match_device() would also fail their probe().  Bolted on to this
> > set is a new, more generic way for these devices to match against
> > either of the I2C/OF tables.
> 
> Even better :) I am generally positive with your patchset, but need to
> review the implementation. For core stuff, this simply needs more
> attention.

Agree.

Thanks Wolfram.

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