[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49786CA6.8010303@cam.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 12:55:02 +0000
From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@....ac.uk>
To: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@....ac.uk>
CC: linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
eric miao <eric.y.miao@...il.com>,
Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>,
Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>,
David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>,
spi-devel-general@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: RFC: Working around dynamic device allocation in i2c. Interaction
with other subystems.
Added spi mailing list (+ likely interested people) as the same approach
is used for device registration as with i2c.
> Dear All,
>
> Within board configuration files, i2c devices are currently allocated using
> i2c_board_info structures. The only element of these that retains it's
> memory address once the struct device elements are allocated (upon adapter
> initialization) is the platform data pointer.
>
> Several subsystems (regulator and clock for example) use an association
> method based upon a device specific string associated with a pointer to
> a device structure. Unfortunately as things currently stand there is no
> means of obtaining a suitable device for i2c devices at the point when
> it is required (in the board config).
>
> So the question is, how to overcome this problem?
>
> Options that I can come up with are:
>
> 1) Relax the constraints that the token used for device identification
> in subsystems using the regulators approach to a void * and use
> the platform data pointer of an i2c device. Note this requires
> every device which may need a regulator to have platform data.
> Whilst this would work, it is far from ideal.
As Mark Brown pointed out:
This would also remove the ability of the APIs using this to use the
struct device for other things like showing what they're doing in sysfs
or use dev_printk.
>
> 2) Allow more static allocation of struct i2c_client. The way of doing
> this with minimal disruption would be to add a pointer to i2c_board_info
> to a preallocated i2c_client structure and if this is supplied do not
> allocate another. A flag can then be used to indicated whether the
> structure has been statically allocated or not (thus preventing it
> being inadvertently freed.
>
> 3) Allow static allocation of i2c_client structures as a direct alternative
> to having any i2c_board_info structures at all. As the majority if not
> all of i2c_board_info's elements are simply copied into the i2c_client
> structure anyway, there is considerable overhead in option 2. Clearly
> it would not be simple or necessarily advisable to remove i2c_board_info
> structures so I would propose providing an alternative set of registration
> functions which would only be used when people cared about the problem
> we are addressing here.
>
> What do people think? In particular can anyone come up with any other /
> better way round this issue. (or am I missing something?)
> In particular, are there any similar cases already in kernel that would
> suggest a particular approach to solving this issue?
>
> I have an implementation of option 2 that works fine and is relatively simple.
>
> Thanks,
>
> ---
> Jonathan Cameron
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
--
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