[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151021081231.GQ1526@lahna.fi.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 11:12:31 +0300
From: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
To: Dustin Byford <dustin@...ulusnetworks.com>
Cc: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
rjw@...ysocki.net, andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] i2c: add ACPI support for I2C mux ports
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:49:59AM -0700, Dustin Byford wrote:
> I considered it, but I thought a default that fairly closely matches the
> old behavior was more convenient.
>
> On the other hand, leaving it up to the controllers makes it all very
> explicit and perhaps simpler to reason about.
>
>
> I could be convinced either way. But, if we move it to the controller
> drivers, which ones need the change?
>
> grep -i acpi drivers/i2c/busses/i2c*
>
> shows 18 drivers that might care.
I'm quite confident the designware I2C is enough for now. Intel uses it
for all SoCs with LPSS and I think AMD has the same block for their I2C
solution.
> > adap->dev.parent = &pdev->dev;
> > adap->dev.of_node = pdev->dev.of_node;
> > ACPI_COMPANION_SET(&adap->dev, ACPI_COMPANION(&pdev->dev));
>
> Interesting, this code isn't in my tree. I wonder why it was added,
> what code looks at the acpi companion on the i2c dev? Before my change
> it was supposed to be NULL, and it is NULL on every other controller.
It is not in any tree. I meant that before b34bb1ee71158d5b it looked
something like that :-)
--
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