[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121201132632.GA17981@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2012 13:26:34 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To: Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
Cc: Simon Glass <sjg@...omium.org>,
Naveen Krishna Chatradhi <ch.naveen@...sung.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
grundler@...omium.org, naveen@...omium.org, w.sang@...gutronix.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] i2c-s3c2410: Add bus arbitration implementation
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 10:14:58PM -0800, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Simon Glass <sjg@...omium.org> wrote:
> > It was originally done separately but I think it was felt that this
> > was overly complex. Olof can you please comment on this?
> it is indeed not controller specific per se, but we are unaware of any
> other platform/driver using it. So, it seemed reasonable to implement
> it in the driver as long as we have only one user; if another one
> comes along it's of course better to move it to the common i2c code.
> At least that was my opinion at the time. I could be convinced
> otherwise if someone else has strong opinions on the matter.
This sort of approach is half the reason SPI ended up being so fun... I
suspect if you look hard enough you'll find that this is just the first
time someone tried to upstream such a scheme. This is all especially
true for the DT bindings, even if the implementation is driver local for
now it'd be better to define generic bindings.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists