[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a10oJwsE8vQmPoX4Xf2zg17ZFqypMHMiPR_xOWUAMSB-w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 16:22:21 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>
Cc: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Przemyslaw Sroka <psroka@...ence.com>,
Arkadiusz Golec <agolec@...ence.com>,
Alan Douglas <adouglas@...ence.com>,
Bartosz Folta <bfolta@...ence.com>,
Damian Kos <dkos@...ence.com>,
Alicja Jurasik-Urbaniak <alicja@...ence.com>,
Jan Kotas <jank@...ence.com>,
Cyprian Wronka <cwronka@...ence.com>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>,
Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/5] i3c: Add core I3C infrastructure
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 3:58 PM, Boris Brezillon
<boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Aug 2017 15:34:14 +0200
> Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Aug 2017 15:11:44 +0200
>> Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Boris Brezillon
>> > <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com> wrote:
> I just realized I forgot to add a "depends on I2C" in the I3C Kconfig
> entry. Indeed, I'm unconditionally calling functions provided by the
> I2C framework which have no dummy wrapper when I2C support is disabled.
> I could of course conditionally compile some portion of the I3C
> framework so that it still builds when I2C is disabled but I'm not sure
> it's worth the trouble.
>
> This "depends on I2C" should also solve the I2C+I3C driver issue, since
> I2C is necessarily enabled when I3C is.
>
> Am I missing something?
That should solve another part of the problem, as a combined driver then
just needs 'depends on I3C'.
On top of that, the i3c_driver structure could also contain callback
pointers for the i2c subsystem, e.g. i2c_probe(), i2c_remove() etc.
When the i2c_probe() callback exists, the i3c layer could construct
a 'struct i2c_driver' with those callbacks and register that under the
cover. This would mean that combined drivers no longer need to
register two driver objects.
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists