[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170309235141.GH20077@dtor-ws>
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2017 15:51:41 -0800
From: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
Cc: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>,
Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com>,
Andrew Duggan <aduggan@...aptics.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-input@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] i2c: export i2c_client_type structure
On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 03:46:24PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 12:12:46AM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > Dmitry,
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 02:16:37PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > i2c bus has 2 different types of device belonging to the same bus and
> > > bus notifiers use device type to distinguish between adapters and clients.
> > > Previously we only had i2c_adapter_type exported, which made code wanting
> > > to work with i2c_client devices test for type not equal to adapter type.
> > > This unfortunately is not safe if we ever add another type to the bus,
> > > so let's export i2c_client_type as well.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > Wolfram, this is the patch I was talking about in the other mail.
> >
> > I see. From a glimpse, I am fine with the patch. I'll add Jean Delvare
> > to CC, though, in case I missed some detail he still knows. Furthermore,
> > while I agree that testing for "not adapter" when one means "is client"
> > is not nice, is there a bigger benefit than being correct in your queue?
>
> No, just my dislike of testing for "dev->type != &i2c_adapter_type" in
> the new i2c bus notifier when we want to work with i2c clients.
I might not answered your question ;) I use i2c_client_type export in
patch #6 of this series (I'll add you to CC in a moment), and I have
some other patches that should use it as well.
Thanks.
--
Dmitry
Powered by blists - more mailing lists