[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110422095259.4d5875d2@jbarnes-desktop>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 09:52:59 -0700
From: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>
To: Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>
Cc: Seth Heasley <seth.heasley@...el.com>, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.39-rc3] i2c-i801: SMBus patch for Intel Panther
Point DeviceIDs
On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 18:44:49 +0200
Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org> wrote:
> Hi Seth,
>
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 11:33:39 -0700, Seth Heasley wrote:
> > This patch adds the SMBus controller DeviceID for the Intel Panther Point PCH.
>
> With each new chip, we have to add the SMBus device ID to pci_ids.h,
> then wait for Jesse to merge that, and only then I can apply the
> changes to i2c-i801.c. This approach slows things down needlessly.
>
> It isn't mandatory to add IDs to pci_ids.h when an ID is only used
> locally in a device driver. So what I would like to propose is that we
> move all PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_*_SMBUS declarations from pci_ids.h to
> i2c-i801.c now. Then you can resubmit your Panther Point patches, and
> the pci and i2c parts will be independent, so Jesse and myself don't
> depend on each other to apply them.
>
> What do you think? Jesse, any objection?
>
> Seth, if you agree, I can take care of the move, or you can send a
> patch doing that, whatever you prefer.
Yeah, that makes sense. I'd be happy to take a patch to pull the
defines out of pci_ids.h and push them into the x86 irq.c and your i2c
code.
--
Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
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