[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130201225749.4b17d42d@endymion.delvare>
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 22:57:49 +0100
From: Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc: Vincent Palatin <vpalatin@...omium.org>, lm-sensors@...sensors.org,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Olof Johansson <olofj@...omium.org>,
Sameer Nanda <snanda@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hwmon: (lm90) Add device tree support
On Fri, 1 Feb 2013 13:36:40 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 01:18:22PM -0800, Vincent Palatin wrote:
> > When the kernel has device tree support, we avoid doing the auto-detection
> > as probing the busses might mess-up sensitive I2C devices or trigger long
> > timeouts on non-functional busses.
> (...)
> As for the detect function, I am not entirely sure if we want or should get
> rid of it just because OF is configured. That may have unintended side effects.
> Either case, I would argue that if we do want to do that, it should be done
> for _all_ I2C devices and not just for the lm90 driver. In other words, it
> should be done in the I2C subsystem, maybe with a separate configuration option.
I can't think of any reason for doing that. Detection only happens on
I2C buses which request it (by setting i2c_adapter.class.) I2C system
bus drivers for OF-based platforms would simply not set any class flag,
so detection won't be triggered on them.
--
Jean Delvare
--
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