[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1807041420160.9872@fox.voss.local>
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2018 14:31:32 +0200 (CEST)
From: Nikolaus Voss <nikolaus.voss@...wensteinmedical.de>
To: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@...hile0.org>
cc: Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@...hat.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo.bianconi83@...il.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Xiongfeng Wang <xiongfeng.wang@...aro.org>,
linux-iio <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
nv@...n.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] IIO: st_accel_i2c.c: Use probe_new() instead of
probe()
On Wed, 4 Jul 2018, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 1:46 PM, Nikolaus Voss
> <nikolaus.voss@...wensteinmedical.de> wrote:
>
[snip]
> But this discussion isn't really related to your patch. I think is
> correct but just said that (b) wasn't a justification to leave the I2C
> table, points (a) and (c) are though. I won't really be convinced that
> the fallback is the correct thing to do or even a good idea.
I didn't want to annoy you, I just wanted to understand why you think
fallback is such a bad thing that you call it a bug. And I see, it has its
drawbacks ;-). Anyway, thanks for taking the time to clarify this,
Niko
[snip]
Powered by blists - more mailing lists