[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180413204937.440437e9@endymion>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 20:49:37 +0200
From: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>
To: Sam Hansen <hansens@...gle.com>
Cc: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
corbet@....net, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation/i2c: sync docs with current state of
i2c-tools.
On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 09:02:03 -0700, Sam Hansen wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 5:13 AM, Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de> wrote:
> > On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 00:24:57 +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 02:33:42PM -0700, Sam Hansen wrote:
> >> > - Not meant to be called directly; instead, use the access functions
> >> > - below.
> >> > + If possible, use the provided i2c_smbus_* methods described below in favor
> >> > + of issuing direct ioctls.
> >>
> >> Why this change?
> >
> > I'm also not sure if "in favor of" is right. "instead of" would sound
> > better to me, but I'm no native English speaker, I could be wrong.
>
> Sounds good, I'll adopt "instead of". Regarding Wolfram's earlier
> comment, as an engineer, requiring an out-of-tree library to build
> drivers felt a little off. I can revert this section if you want,
> just let me know.
The i2c dev interface, and the overlaying library, are used by
user-space applications. This has nothing to do with "building
drivers", and makes your "out-of-tree" objection irrelevant. I doubt
libi2c is the only user-space library building on top of a kernel
interface.
--
Jean Delvare
SUSE L3 Support
Powered by blists - more mailing lists