[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6DD003C702@AcuExch.aculab.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 13:39:36 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: 'Anatolij Gustschin' <agust@...x.de>,
Bjørn Mork <bjorn@...k.no>
CC: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>, Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
"Linus Walleij" <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Alan Tull <atull@...nel.org>,
"Moritz Fischer" <moritz.fischer@...us.com>,
"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-fpga@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fpga@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-usb@...r.kernel.org" <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/3] mfd: Add support for FTDI FT232H devices
From: Anatolij Gustschin
> Sent: 19 July 2017 14:30
...
> >Stupid question, I know, but I cannot help thinking: If you have an
> >EEPROM then why the h... don't you use an application specific device
> >ID?
>
> It would make sense for adapter devices that you can buy and plug.
> In my particular case the configuration device with FTDI chips is
> internal part of embedded board, the configuration interface is
> never exposed to end users. I doesn't make sense to register an
> ID for such hardware.
Sounds like you should absolutely be registering an ID so that
nothing can try to use it using the default one.
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists