After removal of the legacy EEPROM driver and I2C_CLASS_DDC support in
olpc_dcon there's no i2c client driver left supporting I2C_CLASS_DDC.
Class-based device auto-detection is a legacy mechanism and shouldn't
be used in new code. So we can remove this class completely now.
Preferably this
After removal of the legacy EEPROM driver and I2C_CLASS_DDC support in
olpc_dcon there's no i2c client driver left supporting I2C_CLASS_DDC.
Class-based device auto-detection is a legacy mechanism and shouldn't
be used in new code. So we can remove this class completely now.
Preferably this
On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 3:55 PM Wolfram Sang wrote:
>
>
> > We're not in a hurry. It's just my experience with patch series' affecting
> > multiple subsystems that typically the decision was to apply the full
> > series via one tree. Also to avoid inquires from maintainers like:
> > Shall I take
> We're not in a hurry. It's just my experience with patch series' affecting
> multiple subsystems that typically the decision was to apply the full
> series via one tree. Also to avoid inquires from maintainers like:
> Shall I take it or are you going to take it?
> Of course there may be
On 13.11.2023 18:49, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>
>> Preferably this series should be applied via the i2c tree.
>
> Are we in a hurry here, i.e. does it block further development of the
> i801 smbus driver? My gut feeling says the patches should rather go via
> drm and fbdev trees, but I may be
> Preferably this series should be applied via the i2c tree.
Are we in a hurry here, i.e. does it block further development of the
i801 smbus driver? My gut feeling says the patches should rather go via
drm and fbdev trees, but I may be convinced otherwise.
signature.asc
Description: PGP
After removal of the legacy EEPROM driver and I2C_CLASS_DDC support in
olpc_dcon there's no i2c client driver left supporting I2C_CLASS_DDC.
Class-based device auto-detection is a legacy mechanism and shouldn't
be used in new code. So we can remove this class completely now.
Preferably this
