[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200918075157.GF26842@paasikivi.fi.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 10:51:57 +0300
From: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Dan Scally <djrscally@...il.com>, yong.zhi@...el.com,
bingbu.cao@...el.com, tian.shu.qiu@...el.com, mchehab@...nel.org,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, davem@...emloft.net, robh@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, jorhand@...ux.microsoft.com,
kitakar@...il.com, kieran.bingham@...asonboard.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Add bridge driver to connect sensors to CIO2 device
via software nodes on ACPI platforms
Hi Andy,
On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 03:45:14PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 11:52:28AM +0100, Dan Scally wrote:
> > On 17/09/2020 11:33, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> > > a module and not enlarge everyone's kernel, and the initialisation would at
> > > the same time take place before the rest of what the CIO2 driver does in
> > > probe.
> > I thought of that as well, but wasn't sure which was preferable. I can
> > compress it into the CIO2 driver though sure.
>
> Sakari, I tend to agree with Dan and have the board file separated from the
> driver and even framework.
And it'll be linked to the kernel binary then I suppose?
I don't have a strong opinion either way, just thought that this will
affect anyone using x86 machines, whether or not they have IPU3. I guess it
could be compiled in if the ipu3-cio2 driver is enabled?
--
Sakari Ailus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists