[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121102110038.GA19493@arwen.pp.htv.fi>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 13:00:38 +0200
From: Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>
To: Russ Dill <Russ.Dill@...com>
CC: <balbi@...com>, Pantelis Antoniou <panto@...oniou-consulting.com>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
"Cousson, Benoit" <b-cousson@...com>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Koen Kooi <koen@...inion.thruhere.net>,
Matt Porter <mporter@...com>, <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...com>, Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] capebus moving omap_devices to mach-omap2
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 02:42:51AM -0700, Russ Dill wrote:
> >> browse through various detect functions, yes, some of them key off an
> >> ID, but a lot of them just check various registers to see if certain
> >> bits are zero, or certain bits are one. A lot of I²C devices I've
> >> dealt with have no good way of probing them, especially GPIO chips
> >> (you'll notice none of the I²C GPIO expanders have detect functions)
> >
> > it doesn't mean it can't be done.
>
> Really? Please, do tell how you would write a detect function for a
> PCA9534. It has 4 registers, an input port registers, an output port
> register, a polarity inversion register, and a configuration register.
read them and match to their reset values, perhaps ?
> And don't forget, since we are probing, every detect routine for every
> I²C driver will have to run with every I²C address on every bus,
> possibly with both address formats.
not *every* I2C address. What you say is wrong, a ->detect() method will
only run for those addresses which the device can actually assume.
> >> On top of all this the detect routine does not tell you if the alert
> >> pin is connected to some IRQ, or in the case of a GPIO expander, what
> >> those GPIOs are connected to, etc, etc.
> >
> > so what ? All you want to do with detect is figure out if the far end is
> > who you think it is, not what it's doing.
>
> If we already knew who was there, we wouldn't need a detect routine.
of course not :-) But the whole discussion has been about not knowing
which capes (and thus which devices) are attached to the bone.
--
balbi
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists