[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080611090016.GA5338@flint.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 10:00:16 +0100
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To: Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>
Cc: David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>,
Ryan Mallon <ryan@...ewatersys.com>,
Uli Luckas <u.luckas@...d.de>, i2c@...sensors.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] Earlier I2C initialization
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 10:11:30AM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 13:55:07 -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> > > Why don't you simply initialize the drivers in question with
> > > subsys_initcall()? That's what i2c-pnx, i2c-omap, i2c-davinci and
> > > tps65010 are doing at the moment.
> >
> > If they happen to sit outside the I2C tree and *before* it in
> > link order, things will misbehave.
>
> Well, i2c system bus drivers shouldn't sit outside of the I2C tree, so
> that's not a problem. If you start accepting that drivers live at
> random places in the source tree, then there's simply no way to get
> things right.
That's simply not a realistic view. As I've already pointed out,
framebuffer devices have I2C busses for reading the DDC information
from monitors. These I2C bus drivers live in drivers/video.
Video grabbers have I2C busses for controlling, eg, tuners and video
decoders. These live in drivers/media.
If I follow your argument, would you like cyber2000fb.c to be moved
entirely from drivers/video into drivers/i2c/busses because it contains
an i2c bus driver? Clearly not.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists