[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151021083406.GU1526@lahna.fi.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 11:34:06 +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 Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 01:21:16AM -0700, Dustin Byford wrote:
> On Wed Oct 21 11:12, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I certainly care about i801, ismt, and isch. Doesn't this affect any
> i2c controller with clients that may be enumerated through ACPI?
Yes, but so far I haven't seen any other devices being used for this
than the I2C designware.
Which hardware you are testing this patch on?
--
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